I should add, though, that I know the original code I wrote for digg was not very good. But I learned a lot there, especially from the first 2 developers and the dba we hired at digg after me, and I think its a mark of a decent programmer that they're humble and willing to learn. I think the code I write now is better because of the lessons I learned there.

Also really shitty programmers, when confronted with better ones, often do lots of crappy shit to sabotage the process and cause infighting. I did little if any of that (probably because I had significant equity). I stayed in the background, learned as much as I could, and contributed as much as I could.

I don't think Kevin learned anything there.

Well, you obviously have more insight in to the early days of digg than I do, but you're basically proving his point. You say you had significant equity but wrote bad code. That's not a very good formula.

I disagree. Every programmer I know thinks the code they wrote 5 years ago is bad because they've learned a lot in the years since writing it. The site worked and and worked well, even if the underlying code wasn't as elegant as it could have been. So many sites go through this pain, just look at twitter with their rewrites of job queues and what not.

Agreed. Look at reddit's current codebase. It's such a mess that the OSS platform is all but worthless. [1] Nevertheless, it's handled the incredible demands placed upon it with something approximating success. When your team is too strapped for time to refactor the code that's causing problems, and instead builds hacks upon hacks in an effort to keep the site up, it's a testament to their ingenuity if it's still running years later with millions more customers.

[1] http://www.deserettechnology.com/journal/reddit-the-open-sou...

Reddit is a weird example. Making a code base a platform requires time and effort to be spent on ... Well making it ready to be a platform. There are a lot of things you don't need to do if your code is limited to your team and it's internal processes.

There is a diagram explaining this in the mythical man month, but I don't have my copy handy to give a reference.

Except that reddit's in the odd position of having released their codebase as a platform, without having been able to put the requisite time into making it suitable as such.

I watched a documentary a few weeks ago (damned if I can remember what it's called) about Netscape's transition to Mozilla. The amount of effort that went into that transition was staggering. For his part, Jedberg said [1] that preparing and maintaing redditOSS will likely be one of the first projects for their new hires, as it will make development and maintenance on their current codebase that much easier.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2345247

Code rush perhaps?

That documentry also reaffirmed my commitment to not do pure sitting-at-desk software development. Because my god netscape looked like a horrible place to be, no matter how many smart people you had around you. (These days facebook looks similar, but worse not even cubicles for privacy)

Yup, that was the one, thanks. I'm a bit torn as to the work environment: On the one hand, I'd hate to be a cubicle jockey for a large corporation. On the other, the engineers at netscape seemed to be buoyed by being surrounded by many capable nerds. It's that dichotomy that makes me, on the one hand, want to work for Google, and fear doing so on the other.

You've either stopped learning or stopped advancing professionally if you don't hate the code you wrote 5 years ago.

I dunno...I think the code I wrote even 10 years ago was pretty good - for the problem it was solving. The thing is, I can solve much harder problems now. The code I wrote 3 months ago, solving the problem I have now, is the real shitty stuff.

You can expand inwards and look at how to improve your solutions to existing problems, or you can expand outwards and solve new and harder problems. I highly recommend the former when you're just starting out, because it builds your basic skills and gives you a solid foundation. But eventually you have to stop polishing turds and start hunting for gemstones. There's a limit to what you can accomplish if you solve the same problems over and over again.

Everyone makes mistakes in the early days of startups and digg was no exception.

If you're here, you've probably heard that Ycombinator favors determination over talent. I kept the site up and made things work with extremely limited resources.

I'll second this. Owen's code was bad, because it was a large hack. It was a hack that worked. It was a hack because he had limited resources. He was ONE GUY coding, administering, doing everything up until something like 8 million users. That's not easy. The code was bad. So fucking what. It worked.

So with that, I say Owen is a good coder.

Kevin never understood tech. As Owen says, he's just a guy who looks good on TV. Now he's throwing all his good coders under the bus because he fucked Digg up with his grand V4 vision, and he's trying to point the blame at others besides himself.

"It's a low move, Kevin. Low move. We supported you. We took the blame when we fucked up. We never pointed the finger at you. So take the blame when you fuck up. Asshole."

Sincerely, The guy who kept DBs running for Digg for 4 years.

I'm not sure if you've done so already, but an AMA on reddit would be really neat if you're interested in talking about the early digg days.

>an AMA on reddit would be really neat

Sadly I can't see this going well. Reddit generally makes a big joke of how much Digg [supposedly] sucks. I don't think it would be generally a fulfilling experience for the AMA subject or most onlookers. YMMV.

Some of the best programmers I've worked with will say that the code they wrote a few years ago is bad code... I don't think it's a sign that ojbyrne is a bad developer or that he actually wrote bad code, on the contrary the worse developers are often the ones who are convinced that they are good.

See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Thanks. Now that you mention it, digg spy circa 2005 was a thing of beauty. Concept by Kevin, Design by Daniel Burka, making it all work by me.

I think that statement is upon reflection. Everyone looks back at previous code and thinks they could have written it better. That is just the progression of a developer.

I'd be interested in hearing how the C & D developers were managed more than the fact that some developers had less skill/experience than others. On a project to build a platform like digg, it seems like some extremely significant foresight in software engineering would be needed to give all developers tasks which are both suited to their talent and will be appreciated as important work.

I wouldn't dare make excuses for a developer sabotaging work, but there are some bad situations many developers can be put into which are more likely to produce lazy and shoddy output.

I had that same though pop into my head. Right after claiming that Digg hired a lot of "B" and "C" coders, he says that he's handpicking everyone who is working on his new project. I don't see how that will prevent the same issue from occurring.

I agree. And massive raspberries in Mr Rose's general direction.

However, consider the reverse, is there anybody who is consistently good at picking good developers? Is there any interview process that consistently works? If so, I am not aware of it. Hence I don't consider the hiring process to be 'solved'.

I can see the reasons behind Joel Spolsky's "make sure they write code during the interview" mantra, but you look at some of the other stuff he wants and it's all pointless pointer twiddling. Then he went and broke all the rules anyway by working with Jeff Atwood who by his own admission wouldn't know a C pointer if it bit him in the face.

It makes me wonder, how do they do it in other professions? E.g. is there a process by which you can weed out the good Civil Engineers from the bad ones? Or good Lawyers (leaving aside the obvious and droll joke), or good Doctors? What about a people oriented profession like Priest? Surely they would be able to weed out the good from the bad.

But no, it turns out that for Doctors and Priests we're always getting bad ones in the news (Doctor's lying about their qualifications, practicising without a licence etc).

Okay then, the 'fluffy' professions haven't got this sussed, what about the technical ones?

"is there a process by which you can weed out the good Civil Engineers from the bad ones"

Yes, this the process of licensing. In those professions you mentioned, all people who (legally) work in the field must undergo a process of training and subsequent certification. This includes both work experience and exam requirements over the course of several years prior to certification. Yes, there are people that cheat the system, but the licensing exists to weed them out and protect the consumer.

Software "engineers" undergo no such process or requirements. I can learn ruby in my basement in a year, call myself a software engineer, and get hired building any number of apps. Is my work critical enough that someone may die if I am not certified? Usually not, so the need for certification isn't as strong. Nor have we had the time to develop such continuously relevant certifications in a field that changes several times a year.

Au contraire, licensing does nothing of the sort. It's most always a system that both guarantees a certain minimal level of competence, and by design limits the number of professionals in a field for various political reasons. There are plenty of licensed but only marginally competent (i.e. bad) architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals.

I recall a story about a flight instructor who said to a freshly licensed pilot something like, "Now you've got your license to go out and really learn how to fly".

The point is that true competence and most certainly brilliance requires individually driven effort and expertise that is unlikely ever to be measured by government or professional organization administered exams.

Put it another way: Do you feel that licensing assures us that all drivers on the road are "good"?

(Sorry if my argument sounds abrasive; the subject's a pet peeve of mine.)

But it does ensure a minimum bar for those licensed to practice professionally. So, theoretically (heh), even the worst licensed MD/architect/etc has met the minimum requirements for practicing. I'm not saying they can build an 80-story skyscraper, but in software we have no such means by which to measure potential practitioners.

And getting a pilot's license is a little bit different from being licensed to practice medicine. It also depends on whether you're referring to a private or commercial pilot. Private pilots only need 40 hours[1] of time in the air. And even once a commercial pilot is licensed, there are other regulations in place. And a driver's license is an even lower bar, of course.

So no, licensing (in any form) does not ensure that the licensee is "good" or "brilliant," but it does allow us to ensure a minimum bar that does not currently exist in the software industry today.

(And no worries, it's a pet peeve of mine as well. At least at it relates to the software industry.)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_Unit...

Right. What all these different examples of licensing do is provide some level of protection from complete technical incompetence. Which of course is a worthy pursuit, I just don't agree that the best way to do it is necessarily by licensing. (And unfortunately I'm not going to be able to precisely articulate some alternatives at 3am :)

The historical pattern in the US seems to be that professional licensing, introduced as protection from incompetency, inevitably evolves into a way of limiting competition in a field by restricting the number of practitioners. At least on architectural exams, to the best of my knowledge, the maximum number of those who "pass" each year is set in advance.

It's a slippery slope once you start regulating entry into a field. The regulating body comes under political pressure from anyone with a financial stake, especially practitioners, educators, and major consumers. I'd wager that soon after you need a license to call yourself a software engineer, you'll need an accredited degree and years of internships before you can sit for the licensing exam. It's played out in similar fashion in the other professions.

There are other ways of ensuring competency without the use of government or quasi-government institutions. In software development, incompetency generally wastes time and money, not lives. With stakes this low, perhaps something as simple as a standardized testing service that could be used by HR departments to screen applicants would be viable... (Please pardon my designer's ignorance if something like this already exists in the development world :)

I'd guess most software "engineers" do actually pass such a process. Its called a BSCS. The problem is that the state of the art evolves so rapidly, and the difference between state of the art and good enough 10 years ago isn't that costly in most cases, so there is no real test for that difference.

"most" being the key qualifier there. And there's no requirement that they do, so no means by which to qualify them. Some of the best never do go through that process simply because the state of the art is advancing so fast. I'm not sure any regulatory body could develop a standard and keep it adequately up to date.

Most BSCS programs don't attempt to teach much software engineering (and rightly so because it's really a different discipline).

I've been a hiring manager or principle interviewer for a number of companies. I've found that, unfortunately, certifications (at least in the java/enterprisy world) are almost always negatively correlated with competence.

I completely agree with this statement. In the software industry (and other tech industries like InfoSec), these type of certifications are fluff that anybody willing to spend a few hours studying a book can pass.

I don't know what dropping out of college has to do with it. Inside a company, the developers know who's amazing and who isn't. In my experience you can know varying skill levels based on what everyone else thinks, sort of like reputation pagerank.

Seriously, some of the best coders I know are high school dropouts. Well, actually I'm the only coder I know who's a high school dropout so there might be something to it.

I totally disagree. I think he's directly blaming himself. He's NOT blaming the B and C developers for doing a bad job. They did a B and C job. He's blaming HIMSELF for hiring less than the very best.

Regardless, "I let someone fuck up" is not as forthright as "I fucked up".

He absolutely can if someone reputable tells him so.

No, you can't.

The only people who know who are the good devs are the other devs who have worked with those devs. Reputation outside of the dev circle is largely orthogonal to dev ability, and rather closely tied to social skills e.g. schmoosing the managers.

Man, I am no engineer but I can say with GREAT confidence I know bad engineers.

Are you referring to computer engineers, or other kinds of engineers? (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil etc)

I was talking to an older guy the other week, he didn't seem particularly "switched on". Turns out he makes well over twice what I do, because he predates COBOL, the people that he works for a terrified he'll leave/get hit by a bus etc and nobody will have the skills and knowledge to maintain the systems their business runs on, because all his compatriots got wiped out by an asteroid.

I wouldn't say he was bad at his job. If I was to guess I'd say he was 'okay' at his job, but he didn't seem to have that spark that I associate with greatness. But as his take home packet proves, sometimes 'good enough' is great too :D

I don't really think it's offensive, looks like people here are just trying to get attention. You don't need to be a great coder to know that your developers aren't that good. He accepts making a mistake, and really, talking about this issue is beneficial for other companies that will try to prevent this. So it's rather helpful.

One doesn't need to know how to code to know if a programmer delivers or is always making excuses.

One does need to be a programmer to know if they're delivering at the expense of absurd amounts of technical debt.

only in the short term. In the long run that will become clear to an intelligent person.

Is there before or after you've taken on VC, planned a project roadmap, and realized there was no way you'd hit your goals?

we all know that software is an iterative process and that our goals, scopes, and deadlines go through a lot of change as we iterate. We know this is simply how it is.

Why then is it so hard to view managing people in the same light?

You should probably google "Technical Debt."

I've been developing software for a long time and know what technical debt is. I've seen CEOs with no coding experience effectively judge programmers. I was surprised the first time I saw it, but trust me the good ones can do it.

Agree with you on this one!

I know people who themselves cannot program but know what the hell loops are and stuff that you learn when you open a basic programming books. The stuff that tells you what the hell complexity of a program. If I were to tell them write a simple for loop they would not end up doing it, but when the programmers tell them that some task is taking time, they break down each task so logically that they would make a damn great programmer themselves.

Every reason is analysed and possible directions put infront of the developers. If they say the servers we are using are not fast enough, they are quick to ask back, if it is the code or the servers themselves, since they know of people who are doing just fine using the same servers.

Another great thing in a company is that there will always be smarter developers who will do the same task effectively and faster. Then of course it becomes quite evident if the other guy was at fault or had a genuine issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that you may be "seeking technical cofounder."

I've been developing software for a long time. I'm saying this as a someone who has been a technical cofounder and watched the CEO judge me without being a coder himself. I was very surprised at how effective he was at doing that.

Btw, there is a giant flaw in your logic. You assumed I couldn't judge a programmer, but you then assumed I would successfully judge a technical cofounder.

I have also been developing software for a long time. What I learned at digg is that technical debt matters more, and becomes more of an immediate problem, if you grow insanely. If you have a 100 sympathetic people using your app, it doesn't really matter if there's a few rough edges in it. If you go from 100 sympathetic people to a million or so in six months, you go from "work on it as you can" to "we will be screwed if its not fixed immediately."

Even more so, if you end up being an acquisition target for companies like Google and Yahoo (who want to read your code), then it becomes "this will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars this week if its not fixed now."

This is a bit of a tangent from the original issue which was about the ability of a non programmer to judge programmers. I still hold that the good ones can, and if they cant then how do you propose they pick their technical cofounder?

Regarding technical debt, I think we're conflating a few things under this umbrella. There can be code that is easy to read and maintain, but won't scale to millions of users. Then there is spaghetti code which is brittle, hard to read and modify, but may or may not scale. I think it's ok to have the first before you know if you need to scale.

When you guys got to the point that you realized it needed to scale was it fixed immediately? If not, would it have been that hard to fix it then.

Btw, thank you for talking about this stuff. It's great to hear insights from someone that's been through such things.

One of the things I learned is that readability is a key part of scalability. One or two programmers can figure it out, but when you get to 20 or 30, if the code isn't clear, it costs time and money. Clever hacks need to go by the wayside, in favor of clear code.

As the saying goes "Always assume that the next guy to maintain your code is a psychopath who knows your address."

That is not something I knew in the early days of digg. I know it now.

+1 innumerate