Jeff Atwood: Stack Overflow and Coding Horror
Guests: Jeff Atwood
Full transcript · Read the full conversation in order, with its original context.
Contents13 chapters
§01Transcript · 00:00–07:11§02Transcript · 07:12–13:34§03Transcript · 13:36–20:22§04Transcript · 20:24–26:43§05Transcript · 26:44–33:19§06Transcript · 33:22–39:12§07Transcript · 39:14–45:22§08Transcript · 45:23–52:35§09Transcript · 52:37–59:15§10Transcript · 59:18–1:06:17§11Transcript · 1:06:18–1:13:05§12Transcript · 1:13:06–1:19:42§13Transcript · 1:19:44–1:20:02§01Transcript · 00:00–07:11
The following is a conversation with Jeff Atwood.
He is the co-founder of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange,
websites that are visited by millions of people
every single day.
Much like with Wikipedia, it is difficult to understate
the impact on global knowledge and productivity
that these networks of sites have created.
Jeff is also the author of the famed blog Coding Horror
and the founder of Discourse,
an open source software project
that seeks to improve the quality
of our online community discussions.
This conversation is part of the MIT course
on artificial general intelligence
and the Artificial Intelligence Podcast.
If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, iTunes,
or your podcast provider of choice,
or simply connect with me on Twitter @LexFriedman,
spelled F-R-I-D.
And now, here's my conversation with Jeff Atwood.
Having co-created and managed for a few years
the world's largest community of programmers
in Stack Overflow 10 years ago,
what do you think motivates most programmers?
Is it fame, fortune, glory, process of programming itself,
or is it the sense of belonging to a community?
- I think it's puzzles, really.
I think it's this idea of working on puzzles
independently of other people
and just solving a problem sort of like on your own almost,
although nobody really works alone in programming anymore.
But I will say there's an aspect of sort of
hiding yourself away and just sort of
beating on a problem until you solve it,
like brute force, basically, to me,
is what a lot of programming is.
It's like the computer's so fast, right,
you can do things that would take forever for a human,
but you can just do 'em like so many times and so often
that you get the answer, right?
- You're saying just the pure act of tinkering with the code
is the thing that drives most programmers.
The joy, the struggle balance within the joy of overcoming
the brute force process of pain and suffering
that eventually leads to something that actually works?
- Well, data's fun, too.
Like there's this thing called the shuffling problem,
like the naive shuffle that most programmers write
has a huge flaw, and there's a lot of articles online
about this 'cause it can be really bad
if you're like a casino
and you have an unsophisticated programmer
writing your shuffle algorithm.
There's surprising ways to get this wrong,
but the neat thing is the way to figure that out
is just to run your shuffle a bunch of times
and see like how many orientations of cards you get.
You should get an equal distribution of all the cards.
And with the naive method of shuffling,
if you just look at the data,
if you just brute force and say,
okay, I don't know what's gonna happen,
you just write a program that does it a billion times
and then see what the buckets look like of the data.
And the Monty Hall problem is another example of that,
where you have three doors
and somebody gives you information about another door.
So the correct answer is you should always switch
in the Monty Hall problem, which is not intuitive
and it freaks people out all the time, right?
But you can solve it with data.
If you write a program that does the Monty Hall game
and then never switches, then always switches,
just compare, you would immediately see
that you don't have to be smart, right?
You don't have to figure out the answer algorithmically.
You can just brute force it out with data and say,
well, I know the answer is this
because I ran the program a billion times
and these are the data buckets that I got from it, right?
- So empirically, you find it, but what's the joy of that?
So for you, for you personally, outside of family,
what motivates you in this process?
- Well, to be honest,
I don't really write a lot of code anymore.
What I do at Discourse is like managery stuff,
which I always kind of despised, right?
As a programmer, you think of managers
as people who don't really do anything themselves.
But the weird thing about code is you realize
that like language is code, like the ability
to direct other people lets you get more stuff done
than you could by yourself anyway.
- You said language is code?
- Language is code.
- Meaning communication with other humans?
- Yes, it is.
- You can think of it as a systematic.
So what is it like to be, what makes,
before we get into programming, what makes a good manager?
What makes a good leader?
- Well, I think a leader, it's all about leading by example,
first of all, like sort of doing
and being the things that you want to be.
Now, this can be kind of exhausting,
particularly when you have kids,
'cause you realize that your kids are watching you
like all the time, like even in ways
that you've stopped seeing yourself.
Like the hardest person to see on the planet
is really yourself, right?
It's a lot easier to see other people
and make judgments about them,
but yourself, like you're super biased.
You don't actually see yourself the way other people see you.
Often you're very, very hard on yourself
in a way that other people really aren't going to be.
So, you know, that's one of the insights is, you know,
you gotta be really diligent about thinking like,
am I behaving in a way that represents
how I want other people to behave, right?
Like leading through example.
There's a lot of examples of leaders
that really mess this up, right?
Like they make decisions that are like,
wow, that's why would, you know,
it's just, it's a bad example for other people.
So I think leading by example is one.
The other one I believe is working really hard.
And I don't mean like working exhaustively,
but like showing a real passion for the problem.
Like, you know, not necessarily your solution to the problem
but the problem itself is just one
that you really believe in.
Like with discourse, for example,
the problem that we're looking at,
which is my current project is,
how do you get people in groups to communicate
in a way that doesn't like break down
into the howling of wolves, right?
Like how do you deal with trolling?
Not like technical problems,
but how do I get people to post paragraphs?
How do I get people to use bold?
How do I get people to use complete sentences?
Although those are problems as well,
but like how do I get people to get along with each other,
right, like, and then solve whatever problem it is
they set out to solve or, you know,
reach some consensus on discussion
or just like not hurt each other even, right?
Like maybe it's a discussion that doesn't really matter,
but are people like yelling at each other, right?
And why, right?
Like that's not the purpose of this kind of communication.
So I would say, you know, leadership is about,
you know, setting an example, you know,
doing the things that represent what you want to be
and making sure that you're actually doing those things.
And there's a trick to that too
because the things you don't do
also say a lot about what you are.
- Yeah, so let's pause on that one.
So those two things are fascinating.
So how do you have as a leader that self-awareness?
So you just said it's really hard to be self-aware.
So for you personally, or maybe for other leaders
you've seen or look up to,
how do you know both of the things you're doing
are the wrong things to be doing,
the way you speak to others, the way you behave,
and the things you're not doing?
How do you get that signal?
- There's two aspects to that.
One is like processing feedback that you're getting.
So-- - How do you get feedback?
- Well, right, so are you getting feedback, right?
Like, so one way we do it, for example,
at Discourse, we have three co-founders
and we periodically talk about decisions
before we make them.
So it's not like one person can make a mistake
or like, wow, that's, you know,
there can be misunderstandings, things like that.
So it's part of like group consensus of leadership
is like it's good to have,
I think systems where there's one leader
and that leader has the rule of absolute law
are just really dangerous in my experience.
For communities, for example,
like if you have a community that's run by one person,
that one person makes all the decisions,
that person's gonna have a bad day.
Something could happen to that person, you know,
something, you know, there's a lot of variables.
So like at first, when you think about leadership,
have multiple people doing leadership
and have them talk amongst each other.
So giving each other feedback about the decisions
that they're making.
§02Transcript · 07:12–13:34
And then when you do get feedback,
I think there's that little voice in your head, right?
Like, or your gut or wherever you wanna put it in your body.
I think that voice is really important.
Like I think most people who have any kind of moral compass
or like want to do,
most people want to do the right thing, I do believe that.
I mean, there might be a handful of sociopaths out there
that don't, but most people,
they want other people to think of them as a good person.
And why wouldn't you, right?
Like, do you want people to despise you?
I mean, that's just weird, right?
So you have that little voice that sort of the angel
and devil on your shoulder sort of talking to you
about like what you're doing, how you're doing,
how does it make you feel to make these decisions, right?
And I think having some attunement to that voice
is important.
- But you said that voice also for,
I think there's a programmer situation too,
where sometimes the devil on the shoulder
is a little too loud.
So you're a little too self-critical for a lot of developers,
and especially when you have introverted personality.
How do you struggle with the self-criticism
or the criticism of others?
So one of the things of leadership
is to do something that's potentially unpopular
or what people doubt you,
and you still go through with the decision.
So what's that balance like?
- I think you have to walk people
through your decision making, right?
Like, this is where blogging is really important,
and communication is so important.
Again, code, language is just another kind of code.
It's like, here is the program by which I arrived
at the conclusion that I'm gonna reach, right?
It's one thing to say, like,
this is a decision, it's final, deal with it, right?
That's not usually satisfying to people.
But if you say, look,
we've been thinking about this problem for a while.
Here's some stuff that's happened.
Here's what we think is right.
Here's our goals.
Here's what we wanna achieve.
And we've looked at these options,
and we think this of the available options
is the best option.
People will be like, oh, okay.
Right, maybe I don't totally agree with you,
but I can kinda see where you're coming from.
And I see it's not just arbitrary decision
delivered from a cloud of flames in the sky, right?
It's like a human trying to reach some kind of consensus
about goals, and their goals might be different than yours.
That's completely legit, right?
But if you're making that clear, it's like, oh,
well, the reason we don't agree
is 'cause we have totally different goals, right?
Like, how could we agree?
It's not that you're a bad person.
It's that we have radically different goals in mind
when we started looking at this problem.
- And the other one you said is passion,
or hard work, sorry.
- Well, those are tied together to me, in my mind.
I mean, let's say hard work and passion.
Like, for me, I just really love the problem
discourse is setting out to solve,
because in a way, it's like,
there's a vision of the world
where it all devolves into Facebook
basically owning everything
and every aspect of human communication, right?
And this has always been kind of a scary world for me.
First, 'cause I don't,
I think Facebook is really good at execution.
I gotta compliment them.
They're very competent in terms of what they're doing.
But Facebook has not much of a moral compass
in terms of, Facebook cares about Facebook, really.
They don't really care about you and your problems.
What they care about is how big they can make Facebook,
right? - Is that you're talking
about the company or just the mechanism
of how Facebook works? - Well, kind of both,
really, right?
And the idea with discourse,
the reason I'm so passionate about it
is 'cause I believe every community
should have the right to own themselves, right?
Like, they should have their own software
that they can run that belongs to them.
That's their space where they can set the rules.
And if they don't like it,
they can move to different hosting
or whatever they need to happen can happen.
But this idea of a company town
where all human communication is implicitly owned
by WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook.
And it's really disturbing, too,
'cause Facebook is really smart.
Like I said, they're great at execution.
Buying in WhatsApp and buying Instagram
were incredibly smart decisions.
And they also do this thing, I don't know if you know,
but they have this VPN software
that they give away for free on smartphones,
and it indirectly feeds all the data
about the traffic back to Facebook.
So they can see what's actually getting popular
through the VPNs, right?
They have low-level access to the network data
because users have let them have that.
So-- - So let's take
a small pause here.
First of all, discourse.
Can you talk about, can you lay out the land
of all the different ways you can have communities?
So there's Stack Overflow that you've built,
there's discourse.
So Stack Overflow is kind of like a wiki,
Wikipedia you talk about,
and it's a very specific scalpel, very focused.
So what is the purpose of discourse,
and maybe contrast that with Facebook?
First of all, say what is discourse?
- Yeah. - Start from the beginning.
- Well, let me start from the very beginning.
So Stack Overflow is a very structured
wiki-style Q&A for programmers, right?
And that was the problem we first worked on.
And when we started, we thought it was discussions
because we looked at programming forums and other things,
but we quickly realized we were doing Q&A,
which is a very narrow subset of human communication.
- Sorry, so when you started Stack Overflow,
you thought you didn't even know the Q&A.
- Not really. - You didn't know
it would be Q&A. - I mean, kind of.
Well, we didn't know.
We had an idea of like, okay, these are things
that we see working online.
We had a goal, right?
Our goal was there was this site, Experts Exchange,
with a very unfortunate name.
- Thank you for killing that site.
- Yeah, I know, right?
And a lot of people don't remember it anymore,
which is great.
That's the measure of success,
if people don't remember the thing
that you were trying to replace, then you've totally won.
So it was a place to get answers to programming questions,
but it wasn't clear if it was like focused Q&A,
if it was a discussion.
There were plenty of programming forums.
So we weren't really sure.
We were like, okay, we'll take aspects of Dig and Reddit,
like voting were very important,
reordering answers based on votes,
wiki-style stuff of like being able to edit posts,
not just your posts, but other people's posts
to make them better and keep them more up-to-date,
ownership of blogging of like, okay, this is me.
I'm saying this in my voice.
This is the stuff that I know.
And you get your reputation accrues to you
and it's peer recognition.
So you asked earlier, like what motivates programmers?
I think peer recognition motivates them a lot.
That was one of the key insights of Stack Overflow
was like recognition from your peers is why things get done.
Not necessarily money, not necessarily your boss,
but like your peers saying, wow,
this person really knows their stuff, has a lot of value.
So the reputation system came from that.
So we were sort of Frankensteining a bunch of stuff together
in Stack Overflow, like stuff we had seen working
and we knew worked.
And that became Stack Overflow.
And over time, we realized it wasn't really discussion.
It was very focused questions and answers.
There wasn't a lot of room on the page for,
let me talk about this tangential thing.
It was more like, okay, is it answering the question?
Is it clarifying the question?
Or could it be an alternative answer to the same question?
'Cause there's usually more than one way to do it
in programming.
There's like, say, five to 10 ways.
And one of the patterns we got into early on
with Stack Overflow was there were questions
where there would be like hundreds of answers.
And we're like, well, how can there be a programming question
with 500, 200, 500 answers?
And we looked at those and we realized
§03Transcript · 13:36–20:22
those were not really questions in the traditional sense.
They were discussions.
It was stuff that we allowed early on
that we eventually decided wasn't allowed,
such as what's your favorite programming food?
What's the funniest programming cartoon you've seen?
And we had to sort of backfill a bunch of rules
about like, why isn't this allowed?
Such as, is this a real problem you're facing?
Like, nobody goes to work and says, wow, I can't work
'cause I don't know what the funniest programming cartoon is
so, sorry, can't compile this code now.
Right, it's not a real problem you're facing in your job.
So that was run rule.
And the second, like, what can you really learn from that?
It's like what I call accidental learning
or Reddit-style learning.
Where you're just like, oh, I'll just browse some things
and oh, wow, did you know tree frogs only live three years?
I mean, I just made that up.
I don't know if that's true.
But I didn't really set out to learn that.
I don't need to know that, right?
It's accidental learning.
It was more intentional learning.
Where you're like, okay, I have a problem
and I wanna learn about stuff around this problem having.
Right, and it could be theory, it could be compiler theory,
it could be other stuff.
But I'm having a compiler problem,
hence I need to know the compiler theory,
that aspect of it that gives me, gets me to my answer.
So kind of a directed learning.
So we had to backfill all these rules
as we sort of figured out what the heck it was
we were doing.
And the system came very strict over time.
And a lot of people still complain about that.
And I wrote my latest blog entry,
"What Does Stack Overflow Want to Be When It Grows Up?"
- Celebrating the 10 year anniversary, yeah.
- Yeah, so 10 years.
And the system has trended towards strictness.
There's a variety of reasons for this.
One is people don't like to see other people
get reputation for stuff as they view as frivolous.
Which I can actually understand.
Because if you saw a programmer got like 500 upvotes
for funniest programming cartoon
or funniest comment they had seen in code.
It's like, well, why do they have that reputation?
Is it because they wrote the joke?
Probably not.
I mean, if they did, maybe.
Or the cartoon, right?
They're getting a bunch of reputation
based on someone else's work.
That's not even like programming.
It's just a joke, right?
It's a related program.
So you begin to resent that.
You're like, well, that's not fair.
And it isn't.
At some level, they're correct.
I mean, I empathize.
'Cause like, it's not correct to get reputation for that.
Versus here's a really gnarly regular expression problem.
And here's a really clever, insightful, detailed answer
laying out, oh, here's why you're seeing the behavior
that you're seeing here.
Let me teach you some things
about how to avoid that in the future.
That's great.
Like, that's gold, right?
You want people to get reputation for that.
Not so much for, wow, look at this funny thing I saw, right?
- Great, so there's this very specific Q&A format.
And then take me through the journey
towards discourse in Facebook and Twitter.
So you started at the beginning
that Stack Overflow evolved to have a purpose.
So what is discourse, this passion you have
for creating community for discussion?
What is that?
When was that born and how?
- Well, part of it is based on the realization
that Stack Overflow is only good
for very specific subjects where there's sort of,
it's based on data, facts, and science
where answers can be kind of verified to be true.
Another form of that is there's the book of knowledge,
like the tome of knowledge that defines whatever it is.
You can refer to that book and it'll give you the answer.
There has to be, it only works on subjects
where there's like semi-clear answers to things
that can be verified in some form.
Now, again, there's always more than one way to do it.
There's complete flexibility in the system around that.
But where it falls down is stuff like poker and Lego.
Like we had, if you go to stackexchange.com,
we have an engine that tries to launch
different Q&A topics, right?
And people can propose Q&A topics, sample questions,
and if it gets enough support within the network,
we launch that Q&A site.
So some of the ones we launched were poker and Lego,
and they did horribly, right?
Because, I mean, they might still be there lingering on
in some form, but it was an experiment.
This is like a test, right?
And some subjects work super well in the Stack Engine
and some don't.
But the reason Lego and poker don't work
is because they're so social, really.
It's not about what's the rule here in poker.
It's like, well, what kind of cigars do we like
to smoke while playing poker?
Or what's a cool set of cards to use when playing poker?
Or what's some strategies?
Like say I have this hand come up,
what's some strategies I could use?
It's more of a discussion around what's happening.
Like with Lego, same thing, like here's this cool Lego set
I found, look how awesome this is.
And I'm like, yeah, that's freaking awesome, right?
It's not a question, right?
There's all these social components of the discussions
that don't fit at all.
Like we literally have to disallow those
in Stack Overflow 'cause it's not about being social.
It's about problems that you're facing in your work
that you need concrete answers for, right?
Like you have a real demonstrated problem
that's sort of blocking you in something.
Nobody's blocked by what should I do
when I have a straight flush, right?
Like it's not a blocking problem in the world.
It's just an opportunity to hang out and discuss.
So discourse was a way to address that and say,
look, discussion form software was very, very bad.
And when I came out of Stack Overflow in late, early 2013,
early 2012, it was still very, very bad.
I expected it improved in the four years since I last looked
but it had not improved at all.
And I was like, well, that's kind of terrible
because I love these communities of people
talking about things that they love,
you know, that they're just communities of interest, right?
And there's no good software for them.
Like startups would come to me and say,
hey Jeff, I wanna, you know, I have this startup,
here's my idea.
And the first thing I would say to them is like,
well, first, why are you asking me?
Like, I don't really know your field, right?
Like necessarily, like,
why aren't you asking like the community,
like the people that are interested in this problem,
the people that are using your product,
why aren't you talking to them?
And then they'd say, oh, great idea.
Like, how do I do that?
And then that's when I started playing sad trombone
'cause I realized all the software involving
talking to your users, customers, audience,
patrons, whatever it is, it was all really bad.
You know, it was like stuff that I would be embarrassed
to recommend to other people.
And yet that's where I felt they could get the biggest
and strongest, most effective input
for what they should be doing with their product, right?
It's from their users, from their community, right?
That's what we did on Stack Overflow.
- So what we're talking about with forums,
the, what is it, the dark matter of the internet,
it's still, I don't know if it's still,
but for the longest time,
it has some of the most passionate
and fascinating discussions.
And what's the usual structure?
There's usually, it's linear, so sequential.
So you're posting one after the other
and there's pagination, so it's every,
there's 10 posts and you go to the next page.
And that format still is used by, like I'm,
we're doing a lot of research with Tesla vehicles
and there's a Tesla Motors Club forum,
which is extremely--
- We really wanted to run that, actually.
They pinged us about it, I don't think we got it,
but I really would have liked to gotten that one.
- But they've started before even 2012, I believe.
I mean, they've been running for a long time.
It's still an extremely rich source of information.
So what's broken about that system
and how are you trying to fix it?
- I think there's a lot of power in connecting people
that love the same stuff around that specific topic.
Meaning, Facebook's idea of connection is
just any human that's related to another human, right?
§04Transcript · 20:24–26:43
Like through friendship or any other reason.
Facebook's idea of the world
is sort of the status update, right?
Like a friend of yours did something,
ate at a restaurant, right?
Whereas discussion forums were traditionally
around the interest graph.
Like I love electric cars, specifically I love Tesla, right?
Like I love the way they approach the problem,
I love the style of the founder,
I just love the design ethic.
There's a lot to like about Tesla.
I don't know if you saw the oatmeal,
he did a whole love comic to Tesla.
And it was actually kind of cool
'cause I learned some stuff.
He was talking about how great Tesla cars were specifically,
like how they were built differently.
And he went into a lot of great detail
that was really interesting.
And to me, that oatmeal post, if you read it,
is the genesis of pretty much all interest communities.
I just really love this stuff.
So for me, for example, there's yo-yos, right?
Like I'm into the yo-yo communities.
And these interest communities
are just really fascinating to me.
And I feel more connected to the yo-yo communities
than I do to friends that I don't see that often, right?
Like to me, the powerful thing is the interest graph.
And Facebook kind of dabbles in the interest graph.
I mean, they have groups,
you can sign up for groups and stuff.
But it's really about the relationship graph.
Like this is my coworker, this is my relative,
this is my friend, but not so much about the interest.
So I think that's the linchpin
of which forums and communities are built on
that I personally love.
Like I said, leadership is about passion, right?
And being passionate about stuff
is a really valid way to look at the world.
And I think it's a way a lot of stuff
in the world gets done.
Like I once had someone describe me as,
he's like, "Jeff, you're a guy who,
"you just get super passionate about a few things at a time,
"and you just go super deep in those things."
And I was like, "Oh, that's kind of right.
"That's kind of what I do.
"I'll get into something and just be super into that
"for a couple years or whatever,
"and just learn all I can about it,
"and go super deep in it."
And that's how I enjoy experiencing the world, right?
Like not being shallow on a bunch of things,
but being really deep on a few things
that I'm interested in.
So forums kind of unlock that, right?
And you don't want a world
where everything belongs to Facebook, at least I don't.
I want a world where communities can kind of own themselves,
set their own norms, set their own rules,
control the experience.
'Cause community is also about ownership, right?
If you're meeting at the Barnes & Noble every Thursday,
and Barnes & Noble says, "Get out of here.
"You guys don't buy enough books."
Well, you're kind of hosed, right?
Barnes & Noble owns you, right?
Like you can't.
But if you have your own meeting space,
your own clubhouse, you can set your own rules,
decide what you wanna talk about there,
and just really generate a lot better information
than you could just hanging out at Barnes & Noble
every Thursday at 3 p.m., right?
So that's kind of the vision of Discourse,
is a place where it's fully open source.
You can take the software, you can install it anywhere,
and you and a group of people can go deep
on whatever it is that you're into.
And this works for startups, right?
Startups are a group of people
who go super deep on a specific problem, right?
And they wanna talk to their community.
It's like, "Well, install Discourse."
That's what we do at Discourse.
That's what I did at Stack Overflow.
I spent a lot of time on MetaStack Overflow,
which is our internal, well, public community feedback site,
and just experiencing what the users were experiencing,
'cause they're the ones doing all the work in the system.
And they had a lot of interesting feedback.
And there's that 90/10 rule of 90% of the feedback you get
is not really actionable for a variety of reasons.
It might be bad feedback, it might be crazy feedback,
it might be feedback you just can't act on right now.
But there's 10% of it that's like gold.
It's like literally gold and diamonds,
where it's like feedback of really good improvements
to your core product that are not super hard to get to
and actually make a lot of sense.
And my favorite is about 5% of those stuff
I didn't even see coming.
It's like, "Oh my God, I never even thought of that."
But that's a brilliant idea, right?
And I can point to so many features of Stack Overflow
that we derive from Meta Stack Overflow feedback
and meta discourse, right?
Same exact principle of discourse.
We're getting ideas from the community.
I was like, "Oh my God, I never thought of that."
But that's fantastic, right?
I love that relationship with the community.
- Having built these communities,
what have you learned about?
What's the process of getting a critical mass
of members in a community?
Is it luck, skill, timing, persistence?
Is it the tools like discourse that empower that community?
What's the key aspect of starting from one guy or gal
and then building it to two and then 10
and 100 and 1,000 and so on?
- I think when you're starting with an N of one,
I mean, I think it's persistence
and also you have to be interesting.
Like somebody I really admire once said something
that I always liked about blogging.
He's like, "Here's how you blog.
"You have to have something interesting to say
"and have an interesting way of saying it, right?
"And then do that for like 10 years."
So that's the genesis is like you have to have
sort of something interesting to say
that's not exactly what everybody else is saying
and an interesting way of saying it,
which is another way of saying it,
kind of entertaining way of saying it.
And then as far as growing it, it's like ritual.
You have to, like say you're starting a blog,
you have to say, "Look, I'm gonna blog every week,
"three times a week."
And you have to stick to that schedule, right?
Because until you do that for like several years,
you're never gonna get anywhere.
Like it just takes years to get to where you need to get to
and part of that is having the discipline
to stick with the schedule.
And it helps again if it's something
you're passionate about,
it just won't feel like work.
You're like, "I love this.
"I could talk about this all day every day."
Right?
You just have to do it in a way
that's interesting to other people.
And then as you're growing the community,
that pattern of participation within the community
of like generating these artifacts
and inviting other people to help you
like collaborate on these artifacts.
Like even in the case of blogging,
like I felt in the early days of my blog,
which I started in 2004,
which is really the genesis of Stack Overflow.
If you look at all my blog, it leads up to Stack Overflow,
which was, I have all this energy in my blog,
but I don't, like 40,000 people were subscribing to me.
And I was like, "I want to do something."
And then I met Joel and said,
"Hey Joel, I want to do something.
"Take this ball of energy from my blog and do something."
And all the people reading my blog saw that.
It's like, "Oh, cool.
"You're involving us.
"You're saying, look, you're part of this community.
"Let's build this thing together."
Like they pick the name.
Like we voted on the name for Stack Overflow on my blog.
Like we came up, and naming is super hard for a slide.
The hardest problem in computer science
is coming up with a good name for stuff, right?
But you can go back to my blog.
There's the poll where we voted
and Stack Overflow became the name of the site.
And all the early beta users of Stack Overflow
were audience of my blog plus Joel's blog, right?
So we started from, like, if you look at the genesis,
okay, I was just a programmer who said,
"Hey, I love programming,
"but I have no outlet to talk about it.
"So I'm just gonna blog about it
"'cause I don't have enough people to work
"to talk to about it."
'Cause at the time I worked a place where,
you know, programming wasn't the core output of the company.
It was a pharmaceutical company.
And I just love this stuff, you know, to an absurd degree.
So I was like, "I'll just blog about it,
§05Transcript · 26:44–33:19
"and then I'll find an audience."
And eventually found an audience, eventually found Joel,
and eventually built Stack Overflow
from that one core of activity, right?
But it was that repetition of feeding back in
feedback from my blog comments, feedback from Joel,
feedback from the early Stack Overflow community.
When people see that you're doing that,
they will follow along with you, right?
They'll say, "Oh, cool, you're here in good faith.
"You're actually, you know, not listening to everything
"'cause that's impossible, but you're actually,
"you know, weighting our feedback in what you're doing."
And why wouldn't I?
Because who does all the work on Stack Overflow?
Me, Joel?
No, it's the other programmers
that are doing all the work.
So you've got to have some respect for that.
And then, you know, discipline around,
"Look, you know, we're trying to do a very specific thing
"here on Stack Overflow.
"We're not trying to solve all the world's problems.
"We're trying to solve this very specific Q&A problem
"in a very specific way.
"Not 'cause we're jerks about it,
"but because these strict set of rules
"help us get really good results, right?"
And programmers, that's an easy sell for the most part,
'cause programmers are used to dealing with
ridiculous systems of rules, like, constantly.
That's basically their job.
So they're very, "Oh yeah, super strict system of rules
"that lets me get what I want."
That's programming, right?
That's what Stack Overflow is.
- So you're making it sound easy, but in 2004,
let's go back there.
In 2004, you started the blog, Coding Horror.
Was it called that at the very beginning?
- It was.
One of the smart things I did,
it's from a book by Steve McConnell, Code Complete,
which is one of my favorite programming books,
still probably my number one programming book
for anyone to read.
One of the smart things I did back then,
I don't always do smart things when I start stuff,
I contacted Steve and said, "Hey, I really like this."
It was a sidebar illustration indicating danger in code.
Coding Horror was like, "Watch out."
And I love that illustration 'cause it spoke to me.
'Cause I saw that illustration and go,
"Oh my God, that's me.
"I'm always my own worst enemy."
That's the key insight in programming is,
every time you write something,
think, "How am I gonna screw myself?"
Because you will, constantly.
So that icon was like, "Oh yeah,
"I need to constantly hold that mirror up and look
"and say, 'Look, you're very fallible.
"'You're gonna screw this up.
"'How can you build this in such a way
"'that you're not gonna screw it up later?'
"How can you get that discipline around
"making sure at every step,
"I'm thinking through all the things that I could do wrong
"or that other people could do wrong?"
'Cause that is actually how you get
to be a better programmer a lot of times.
So that sidebar illustration, I loved it so much.
I wrote Steve before I started my blog and said,
"Hey, can I have permission to use this
"'cause I just really like this illustration?"
And Steve was kind enough to give me permission to do that
and just continues to give me permission.
- Really, that's awesome.
But in 2004, you started this blog.
You look at Stephen King, his book on writing,
or Stephen Pressfield, War of Art book.
I mean, it seems like writers suffer.
I mean, it's a hard process of writing, right?
- There's gonna be suffering.
I mean, I won't kid you.
Well, the work is suffering, right?
Doing the work, even when you're, every week,
you're like, "Okay, that blog post wasn't very good,"
or people didn't like it,
or people said disparaging things about it.
You have to have the attitude,
it's like, "No matter what happens,
"I wanna do this for me."
It's not about you, it's about me.
I mean, in the end, it is about everyone
because this is how good work gets out into the world,
but you have to be pretty strict about saying,
"I'm selfish in the sense that I have to do this for me."
You mentioned Stephen King, his book on writing,
but one of the things I do, for example,
when writing is I read it out loud.
One of the best pieces of advice for writing anything
is read it out loud, multiple times.
And make it sound like you're talking
because that is the goal of good writing.
It should sound like you said it
with slightly better phrasing
'cause you have more time to think about what you're saying,
but it should sound natural when you say it.
And I think that's probably the single best writing advice
I can give anyone, just read it over and over out loud,
make sure it sounds like something you would normally say,
and it sounds good.
- And what's your process of writing?
So there's usually a pretty good idea behind the blog post.
- So ideas, right.
So I think you gotta have the concept
that there's so many interesting things in the world.
Like, I mean, my God, the world is amazing, right?
Like, you can never write about everything that's going on
'cause it's so incredible,
but if you can't come up with, like, let's say,
one interesting thing per day to talk about,
then you're not trying hard enough
'cause the world is full of just super interesting stuff.
And one great way to mine stuff is go back to old books
'cause they bring up old stuff that's still super relevant.
And I did that a lot
'cause I was reading classic programming books
and a lot of the early blog posts were like,
"Oh, I was reading this programming book
"and they brought this really cool concept
"and I wanna talk about it some more."
And you get the, I mean,
you're not claiming credit for the idea,
but it gives you something interesting to talk about
that's kind of evergreen, right?
Like, you don't have to go, "What should I talk about?"
So just go dig up some old classic programming books
and find something that, "Oh, wow, that's interesting."
Or, "How does that apply today?"
Or, "What about X and Y?"
Or compare these two concepts.
- So pull a couple of sentences from that book
and then sort of play off of it,
almost agree or disagree.
So in 2007, you wrote that you were offered
a significant amount of money to sell the blog.
You chose not to.
What were all the elements you were thinking about?
'Cause I'd like to take you back.
It seems like there's a lot of nonlinear decisions
you made through life.
So what was that decision like?
- Right, so one of the things I love
is the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books,
which I loved as a kid
and I feel like they're early programmer books
'cause they're all about if-then statements, right?
If this, then this.
And they're also very, very unforgiving.
Like, there's all these sites that map
the classic "Choose Your Own Adventure" books
and how many outcomes are bad.
There's a lot of bad outcomes.
So part of the game is like, oh, I got a bad outcome.
Go back one step, go back one further step.
It's like, how did I get here, right?
Like, it's a sequence of decisions.
And this is true of life, right?
Like, every decision is a sequence, right?
Individually, any individual decision
is not necessarily right or wrong,
but they lead you down a path, right?
So I do think there's some truth to that.
So this particular decision,
the blog had gotten fairly popular.
There was a lot of RSS readers that I had discovered.
And this guy contacted me out of the blue
from this bug tracking company.
He's like, oh, I really wanna buy your blog for like,
I think it was around, it was $100,000.
It might have been like 80,000, but it was a lot, right?
Like, and that's, you know, at the time,
like, I would have a year's worth of salary all at once.
So I had to really think about, like, well, you know,
and I remember talking to people at the time.
I was like, wow, that's a lot of money.
But then at the other end, like, I really like my blog,
right, like, do I wanna sell my blog?
'Cause it wouldn't really belong to me
anymore at that point.
And one of the guidelines that I like to,
I don't like to give advice to people a lot,
but one of the pieces of advice I do give,
'cause I do think it's really true
and it's generally helpful,
is whenever you're looking at a set of decisions,
like, oh gosh, should I do A, B, or C,
you gotta pick the thing that's a little scarier
§06Transcript · 33:22–39:12
in that list, because not, you know,
not like jump off a cliff scary,
but the thing that makes you nervous.
'Cause if you pick the safe choice,
it's usually you're not really pushing.
You're not pushing yourself.
You're not choosing the thing that's gonna help you grow.
So for me, the scarier choice was to say no.
I was like, well, no, let's just see where this is going,
right, because then I own it.
I mean, it belongs to me.
It's my thing.
And I can just take it
and to some other logical conclusion, right?
Because imagine how different the world would have been
had I said yes and sold the blog.
It's like there probably wouldn't be Stack Overflow.
- Yeah.
- You know, a lot of other stuff would have changed.
So for that particular decision,
I think it was that same rule,
like, what scares me a little bit more.
- Do the thing that scares you.
- Yeah.
- So speaking of which, startups.
I think there's a specific, some more general questions
that a lot of people would be interested in.
You've started Stack Overflow.
You started Discourse.
So what's the, you know, it's one, two, three guys,
whatever it is in the beginning.
What was that process like?
Do you start talking about it?
Do you start programming?
Do you start, like, where's the birth
and the catalyst that actually--
- Well, I can talk about it in context
of both Stack Overflow and Discourse.
So I think the key thing initially is there is a problem.
Something, there's some state of the world
that's unsatisfactory to the point
that you're upset about it, right?
In that case, it was experts exchange.
I mean, Joel's original idea,
'cause I approached Joel, I was like,
look, Joel, I have all this energy behind my blog.
I wanna do something, I wanna build something,
but I don't know what it is,
'cause I'm honestly not a good idea person.
I'm really not.
I'm like the execution guy.
I'm really good at execution,
but I'm not good at blue-skying ideas.
It's not my forte.
Which is another reason why I like the community feedback,
'cause they blue-sky all day long for you, right?
So when I can just go in and cherry-pick
a blue-sky idea from a community,
even if I have to spend three hours reading
to get one good idea, it's worth it, man.
But anyway, so the idea from Joel was,
hey, experts exchange, it's got great data,
but the experience is hideous, right?
It's trying to trick you.
It feels like a used car salesman.
It's just bad.
So I was like, oh, that's awesome.
It feeds into community.
It feeds into like, we can make a creative commons.
So I think the core is to have a really good idea
that you feel very strongly about in the beginning,
that there's a wrong in the world,
an injustice that we will right
through the process of building this thing.
For discourse, it was like, look,
there's no good software for communities
to just hang out and do stuff, right?
Like whether it's problem-solving, startup, whatever.
Forms are such a great building block of online community,
and they're hideous.
They were so bad, right?
It was embarrassing.
Like I literally was embarrassed
to be associated with this software, right?
We have to have software that you can be proud of.
It's like, this is competitive with Reddit.
This is competitive with Twitter.
This is competitive with Facebook, right?
I would be proud to have the software on my site.
So that was the genesis of discourse,
was feeling very strongly about
there needs to be a good solution for communities.
So that's step one,
genesis of an idea you feel super strongly about, right?
And then people galvanize around the idea.
Like Joel was already super excited about the idea.
I was excited about the idea.
So with the forum software, I was posting on Twitter.
I had researched, as part of my research,
I start researching the problem, right?
And I found a game called Forum Wars,
which was a parody of forum.
It's still very, very funny of like forum behavior,
circle like I would say 2003.
It's aged some, right?
Like the behavior's a little different in the era of Twitter,
but it was awesome.
It was very funny.
And it was like a game, it was like an RPG,
and it had a forum attached to it.
So it was like a game about forums with a forum attached.
I was like, this is awesome, right?
This is so cool.
And the founder of that company or that project,
it wasn't really a company,
contacted me, this guy Robin Ward from Toronto.
He said, "Hey, I saw you've been talking about forums.
"And I really love that problem space.
"I'd still love to build really good forum software
"'cause I don't think anything out there's any good."
And I was like, awesome.
At that point, I was like, we're starting a company.
Because I couldn't have wished for a better person
to walk through the door and say,
I'm excited about this too.
Same thing with Joel, right?
I mean, Joel is a legend in the industry, right?
So when he walked through, he said,
I'm excited about this problem.
I was like, me too, man.
We can do this, right?
So that to me is the most important step.
It's like having an idea you're super excited about
and another person, a co-founder, right?
'Cause again, you get that dual leadership, right?
Of like, am I making a bad decision?
Sometimes it's nice to have checks of like,
is this a good idea?
I don't know, right?
- So those are the crucial seeds.
But then starting to build stuff,
whether it's you programming or somebody else--
- There is prototyping.
So there's tons of research.
There's tons of research.
Like, what's out there that failed?
'Cause a lot of people look at its successes.
Oh, look at how successful X is.
Everybody looks at the successes.
Those are boring.
Show me the failures 'cause that is what's interesting.
That's where people were experimenting.
That's where people were pushing.
But they failed, but they probably failed for reasons
that weren't directly about the quality of their idea, right?
So look at all the failures.
Don't just look what everybody looks at,
which is like, oh gosh,
look at all these successful people.
Look at the failures.
Look at the things that didn't work.
Research the entire field.
And so that's the research that I was doing
that led me to Robin, right, was that.
And then when we, for example,
when we did Stack Overflow, we're like, okay,
well, I really like elements of voting and digging Reddit.
I like the Wikipedia, everything's up to date.
Nothing is like an old tombstone
that like has horrible out-of-date information.
We know that works.
Wikipedia is an amazing resource.
Blogging, the idea of ownership is so powerful, right?
Like, oh, I, Joe, wrote this,
and look how good Joe's answer is, right?
Like all these concepts we were rolling together,
researching all the things that were out there
that were working and why they were working
and trying to like fold them into that, again,
that Frankenstein's monster of what Stack Overflow is.
And by the way, that wasn't a free decision
because there's still a ton of tension
in the Stack Overflow system.
There's reasons people complain about Stack Overflow
because it's so strict, right?
Why is it so strict?
Why are you guys always closing my questions?
It's because there's so much tension
that we built into the system
around like trying to get good, good results
out of the system.
And you know, it's not a free.
That stuff doesn't come for free, right?
It's not like we all have perfect answers
and nobody will have to get their feelings hurt
or nobody will have to get downvoted.
Like, it doesn't work that way, right?
- So this is an interesting point and a small tangent.
You write about anxiety.
So I've posted a lot of questions
§07Transcript · 39:14–45:22
and written answers on Stack Overflow.
And the questions that I usually go to
something very specific to something I'm working on.
This is something you talk about
that really the goal of Stack Overflow
isn't about, is to write a question that's not about you.
It's about the question that will help
the community in the future.
- Right, that's a tough sell, right?
Because people are like, well, you know,
I don't really care about the community.
What I care about is my problem.
- My problem.
- And that's fair, right?
It's sort of that, again, that tension,
that balancing act.
We wanna help you, but we also wanna help
everybody that comes behind you, right?
The long line of people are gonna come and say,
oh, I kinda have that problem too, right?
And if nobody's ever gonna come up and say,
I have this problem too, then that question
shouldn't exist on Stack Overflow
because the question is too specific.
And even that's tension, right?
How do you judge that?
How do you know that nobody's ever gonna have
this particular question again?
So there's a lot of tension in the system.
- Do you think that anxiety of asking the question,
the anxiety of answering that tension
is inherent to programmers,
is inherent to this kind of process,
or can it be improved?
Can it be happy land where that tension
is not quite so harsh?
- I don't think Stack Overflow can totally change
the way it works.
One thing they are working on, finally,
is the Ask page had not changed since 2011.
I'm still kinda bitter about this
because I feel like you have a Q&A system
and what are the core pages in a Q&A system?
Well, first of all, the question,
all the answers and also the Ask page,
particularly when you're a new user
or someone trying to ask a question,
that's the point at which you need the most help.
And we just didn't adapt with the times.
But the good news is they're working on this,
from what I understand,
and it's gonna be a more wizard-based format.
And you could envision a world
where as part of this wizard-based program,
when you're asking a question,
so okay, come up with a good title.
What are good words to put in the title?
One word that's not good to put in the title
is problem, for example.
I have a problem.
Oh, you have a problem.
Okay, a problem, that's great, right?
Like, you need specifics, right?
Like, so it's trying to help you
make a good question title, for example.
That step will be broken out.
All that stuff.
But one of those steps in that wizard of asking
could say, hey, I'm a little nervous.
You know, I've never done this before.
Can you put me in a queue for special mentoring, right?
You could opt in to a special mentor.
I think that would be fantastic.
Like, I don't have any objection to that at all
in terms of being an opt-in system.
'Cause there are people that are like,
you know, I just wanna help 'em.
I wanna help a person no matter what.
I wanna go above and beyond.
I wanna spend hours with this person.
It depends what their goals are, right?
- It's a great idea.
- Who am I to judge, right?
So that's fine.
It's not precluded from happening.
But there's a certain big city ethos that we started with.
Like, look, we're New York City.
You don't come to New York City and expect them to be,
oh, welcome to the city, Joe.
How's it going?
Come on in.
Let me show you around.
That's not how New York City works, right?
I mean, and you know, again,
New York City has a reputation for being rude,
which I actually don't think it is
having been there fairly recently.
It's not rude.
People are just like going about their business, right?
They're like, look, I have things to do.
I'm busy.
I'm a busy professional, as are you.
And since you're a busy professional,
certainly when you ask a question,
you're gonna ask the best possible question, right?
Because you're a busy professional
and you would not accept anything less
than a very well-written question
with a lot of detail about why you're doing it,
what you're doing, what you researched,
what you found, right?
'Cause you're a professional like me, right?
And this rubs people sometimes the wrong way.
And I don't think it's wrong to say,
look, I don't want that experience.
I want just a more chill place for beginners.
And I still think Stack Overflow
was never designed for beginners, right?
There's this misconception that,
even Joel says sometimes,
oh yeah, Stack Overflow for beginners.
And I think if you're a prodigy, it can be.
- Right, but for the most part not.
- But that's not really representative, right?
I think as a beginner,
you want a totally different set of tools.
You want live screen sharing, live chat.
You want access to resources.
You want a playground,
like a playground you can experiment in and test,
and all this stuff that we just don't give people
because that was never really the audience
that we were designing Stack Overflow for.
That doesn't mean it's wrong.
And I think it would be awesome
if there was a site like that on the internet,
or if Stack Overflow said,
hey, we're gonna start doing this.
That's fine too.
I'm not there, I'm not making those decisions.
But I do think the pressure,
the tension that you described is there
for people to be, look, I'm a little nervous
'cause I know I gotta do my best work, right?
- The other one is something you talk about,
which is also really interesting to me,
is duplicate questions.
It's a really difficult problem that you highlight.
- Super hard.
- Like, you could take one little topic,
and you could probably write 10, 20, 30 ways
of asking about that topic,
and they would be all different.
I don't know if there should be one page
that answers all of it.
Is there a way that Stack Overflow
can help disambiguate,
like separate these duplicate questions,
or connect them together?
Or is it a totally hopeless, difficult, impossible task?
- I think it's a very, very hard computer science problem,
and partly 'cause people are very good
at using completely different words.
It always amazed me on Stack Overflow,
you'd have two questions that were functionally identical,
and one question had like zero words in common
with the other question.
I'm like, oh my God.
From a computer science perspective,
how do you even begin to solve that?
And it happens all the time.
People are super good at this, right?
Accidentally at asking the same thing
in like 10, 20 different ways.
And the other complexity is we want
some of those duplicates to exist,
'cause if there's five versions with different words,
have those five versions point
to the one centralized answer, right?
It's like, okay, this is duplicate, no worries.
Here's the answer that you wanted over here on this,
the prime example that we want to have,
rather than having 10 copies of the question and the answer.
Because if you have 10 copies of the question and answer,
this also devalues the reputation system,
which programmers hate, as I previously mentioned.
You're getting reputation for an answer
that somebody else already gave.
It's like, well, it's an answer,
but somebody else already gave that answer,
so why are you getting reputation for the same answer
as the other guy who gave it four years ago?
People get offended by that, right?
So the reputation system itself adds tension to the system,
in that the people who have a lot of reputation
become very incentivized to enforce the reputation system.
And for the most part, that's good.
I know it sounds weird, but for the most part,
it's like, look, strict systems,
I think to use Stack Overflow,
§08Transcript · 45:23–52:35
you have to have the idea that,
okay, strict systems ultimately work better.
And I do think in programming,
you're familiar with loose typing versus strict typing,
right, the idea that you can declare a variable,
not declare a variable, rather,
just start using a variable,
and okay, I see it's implicitly an integer,
bam, awesome, duck equals five.
Well, duck is now an integer of five, right?
And you're like, cool, awesome, simpler, right?
Why would I wanna worry about typing?
And for a long time, in the Ruby community,
they're like, yeah, this is awesome.
You just do a bunch of unit testing,
which is testing your program's validity after the fact
to catch any bugs that strict typing
of variables would have caught.
And now you have this thing called TypeScript
from Microsoft, from the guy who built C# Anders,
who's one of the greatest minds in software development,
right, like in terms of language design,
and says, no, no, no, we wanna bolt on
a strict type system to JavaScript
'cause it makes things better.
And now everybody's like, oh my God,
we deployed TypeScript and found 50 latent bugs
that we didn't know about, right?
Like, this is super common.
So I think there is a truth in programming
that strictness, it's not the goal.
We're not saying be super strict
'cause strictness is correct.
No, it's no, no, strictness produces better results.
That's what I'm saying, right?
So strict typing of variables,
I would say you almost universally have consensus now
is basically correct, should be that way in every language.
Duck equals five should generate an error
'cause no, you didn't declare,
you didn't tell me that duck was an integer, right?
That's a bug, right?
Or maybe you mistyped, you typed deck, right,
instead of duck, right?
You never know, this happens all the time, right?
So with that in mind, I will say
that the strictness of the system is correct.
Now, that doesn't mean cruel, that doesn't mean mean,
that doesn't mean angry, it just means strict, okay?
So I think where there's misunderstanding is,
and people get cranky, right?
Like another question you asked is like,
why are programmers kind of mean sometimes?
Well, who do programmers work with all day long?
So I have a theory that if you're at a job
and you work with assholes all day long,
what do you eventually become?
- An asshole. - An asshole.
And what is the computer except the world's biggest asshole?
Because the computer has no time for your bullshit.
The computer, the minute you make a mistake,
everything else crashing down, right?
One semicolon has crashed space missions, right?
So that's normal.
So you begin to internalize that, you begin to think,
oh, my coworker, the computer, is super strict
and kind of a jerk about everything.
So that's kind of how I'm gonna be,
because I work with this computer
and I have to accede to its terms on everything.
So therefore, you start to absorb that
and you start to think, oh, well, being really strict
arbitrarily is really good.
An error of error code 56249 is a completely good error
message 'cause that's what the computer gave me, right?
So you kind of forget to be a person at some level.
And you know how they say great detectives
internalize criminals and kind of are criminals themselves?
Like this trope of the master detective is good
'cause he can think like the criminal.
Well, I do think that's true of programmers.
Really good programmers think like the computer
because that's their job.
But if you internalize it too much,
you become the computer and you kind of become
a jerk to everybody because that's what you've internalized.
- You're almost not a jerk, but you have no patience
for a lack of strictness, as you said.
- It's not out of a sense of meanness, it's accidental.
But I do believe it's an occupational hazard
of being a programmer is you start
to behave like the computer.
You're very unforgiving, you're very terse,
you're very, oh, wrong, incorrect, move on.
It's like, well, can you help me?
Like, what could I do to fix, nope, wrong, next question.
Right, like that's normal for the computer, right?
Just fail, next, right?
Like, I don't know if you remember in Saturday Night Live,
like in the '90s, they had this character who was an IT guy.
- Yeah. - The Move guy, move.
- Was that Jimmy Fallon?
No, no.
- Can't remember. - Who played him?
Okay, yeah, I remember, move.
- Right, he had no patience for it.
- Might have been Mad TV, actually.
- Oh, was it Mad TV?
Might have been, might have been.
But anyway, that's always been the perception, right?
You start to behave like the computer.
It's like, oh, you're wrong, out of the way, you know?
- You've written so many blog posts about programming,
about programs, programming, programmers.
What do you think makes a good,
let's start with what makes a good solo programmer?
- Well, I don't think you should be a solo programmer.
I think to be a good solo programmer,
it's kinda like what I talked about, well, not on mic,
but one of the things John Carmack,
one of the best points he makes in the book
"Masters of Doom," which is a fantastic book,
and anybody listening to this who hasn't read it,
please read it, it's such a great book,
is that at the time they were working on stuff
like Wolfenstein and Doom,
they didn't have the resources that we have today.
They didn't have Stack Overflow,
they didn't have Wikipedia,
they didn't have discourse forums,
they didn't have places to go to get people to help them.
They had to work on their own.
And that's why it took a genius like Carmack
to do this stuff, 'cause you had to be a genius
to invent from first principles.
A lot of the stuff he was,
the hacks he was coming up with were genius,
genius-level stuff.
But you don't need to be a genius anymore,
and that means not working by yourself.
You have to be good at researching stuff online,
you have to be good at asking questions,
really good questions that are really well researched,
which implies, oh, I went out and researched
for three hours before I wrote this question.
It's like, that's what you should be doing,
because that's what's gonna make you good, right?
To me, this is the big difference between programming
in the '80s versus programming today,
is you kinda had to be by yourself back then.
Where would you go for answers?
I remember in the early days,
when I was learning Visual Basic for Windows,
I would call the Microsoft helpline on the phone
when I had a program, 'cause I was like,
I don't know what to do.
So I would go and call, and they had these huge phone banks,
and I'm like, can you imagine how alien that is now?
Who would do that?
Like, that's crazy.
So there was just nowhere else to go when you got stuck.
I had the books that came with it.
I read those, studied those religiously.
I just saw a post from Steve Sanofsky
that said the C++ version seven came with 10,000 pages
of written material, because where else
were you gonna figure that stuff out?
Go to the library?
I mean, you didn't have Wikipedia.
You didn't have Reddit.
You didn't have anywhere to go to answer these questions.
- So you've talked about, through the years,
basically not having an ego and not thinking
that you're the best programmer in the world.
And so always kind of just looking to improve,
to become a better programmer than you were yesterday.
So how have you changed as a programmer
and as a thinker, designer around programming
over the past, what is it, 15 years,
really, of being a public figure?
- I would say the big insight that I had
is eventually, as a programmer,
you have to kind of stop writing code to be effective,
which is kind of disturbing, 'cause you really love it.
But you realize being effective at programming
in the general sense doesn't mean writing code.
And a lot of times you can be much more successful
by not writing code than writing code
in terms of just solving the problems you have.
Essentially hiring people that are really good
and setting them free and giving them basic direction
on strategy and stuff.
'Cause a lot of the problems you encounter
aren't necessarily solved through really gnarly code.
They're solved by conceptual solutions,
which can then be turned into code.
But are you even solving the right problem?
I mean, so I would say for me,
the main insight I have is to succeed as a programmer,
you eventually kind of stop writing code.
§09Transcript · 52:37–59:15
That's going to sound discouraging, probably,
to people who are hearing, but I don't mean it that way.
What I mean is that you're coding
in a higher level language.
Eventually, like, okay, so we're coding
in assembly language, right?
That's the beginning, right?
You're hard-coded to the architecture.
Then you have stuff like C, where it's like,
wow, we can abstract across the architecture.
You can write code.
I can then compile that code for ARM
or whatever, X86 or whatever else is out there.
And then even higher level than that, right?
Like you're looking at Python, Ruby, interpreted languages.
And then to me as a programmer, like, okay,
I want to go even higher.
I want to go higher than that.
How do I abstract higher than language?
It's like, well, you abstract in spoken language
and written language, right?
Like you're sort of inspiring people to get things done,
giving them guidance, like, what if we did this?
What if we did this?
You're writing in the highest level language that there is,
which is, for me, English, right?
Whatever your spoken language is.
So it's all about being effective, right?
And I think Patrick McKenzie, patio 11 on Hacker News
and works at Stripe, has a great post about this,
of how calling yourself a programmer
is a career limiting move at some level,
once you get far enough from your career.
And I really believe that.
And again, I apologize, this is sound discouraging.
I don't mean it to be, but he's so right.
Because all the stuff that goes on around the code,
like the people, like that's another thing,
if you look at my early blog entries,
it was about, wow, programming is about people
more than it's about code,
which doesn't really make sense, right?
But it's about, can these people even get along together?
Can they understand each other?
Can you even explain to me what it is you're working on?
Are you solving the right problem?
Peopleware, right?
Another classic programming book, which again,
up there with CodeComplete, please read Peopleware.
It's that software is people, right?
People are the software first and foremost.
So a lot of the skills that I was working on
early in the blog were about figuring out
the people parts of programming,
which were the harder parts.
The hard part of programming,
once you get a certain skill level in programming,
you can pretty much solve any reasonable problem
that's put in front of you.
You're not writing algorithms from scratch, right?
That just doesn't happen.
So any sort of reasonable problem put in front of you,
you're gonna be able to solve.
But what you can't solve is our manager is a total jerk.
You cannot solve that with code.
That is not a code-solvable problem.
And yet that will cripple you way more than,
oh, we had to use this stupid framework I don't like,
or Sam keeps writing bad code that I hate,
or Dave is off there in the wilderness
writing God knows what, right?
These are not your problems.
Your problem is your manager or a coworker
is so toxic to everybody else in your team
that nobody can get anything done
because everybody's so stressed out and freaked out, right?
These are the problems that you have to attack.
- Absolutely, and so as you go to these
higher level abstractions, as you've developed
as a programmer to higher, higher level abstractions
and go into natural language,
you're also the guy who kind of preached building it,
diving in and doing it, and learn by doing.
Do you worry that as you get to higher,
higher level abstractions, you lose track
of the lower level of just building?
Is like, do you worry about that?
Even, not maybe now, but 10 years from now,
20 years from now?
- Well, no, I mean, there is always that paranoia,
and oh gosh, I don't feel it's valuable
since I'm not writing code.
But for me, when we started the Discourse project,
it was Ruby, which I didn't really know Ruby.
I mean, as you pointed out,
and this is another valuable observation from Stack Overflow,
you can be super proficient, for example, C#,
which I was working in, that's when we built Stack Overflow,
and still is written in,
and then switch to Ruby, and you're a newbie again.
But you have the framework.
I know what a for loop is.
I know what recursion is.
I know what a stack trace is.
I have all the fundamental concepts to be a programmer,
I just don't know Ruby.
So I'm still on a higher level.
I'm not like a beginner, beginner, like you're saying.
I'm just like, I need to apply my programming concepts
I already know to Ruby.
- Well, so there's a question that's really interesting.
So looking at Ruby, how do you go about learning enough
that your intuition can be applied, carried over?
- That's what I was trying to get to.
What I realized, particularly when I started
with just me and Robin, I realized,
if I bother Robin, I am now costing us productivity.
Every time I go to Robin, rather than building
our first alpha version of discourse,
he's now answering my stupid questions about Ruby.
Is that a good use of his time?
Is that a good use of my time?
And the answer to both of those was resoundingly no.
We were getting to an alpha, and it was pretty much just,
okay, we'll hire more programmers.
Like we eventually hired Neil, and then eventually Sam,
who came in as a co-founder.
Actually, it was Sam first, then Neil later.
But the answer to the problem is just hire
other competent programmers.
It's not like teach, now I shall pull myself up
by my bootstraps and learn Ruby.
But at some point, writing code becomes a liability to you
in terms of getting things done.
There's so many other things that go on in the project,
like building the prototype.
You mentioned, well, how do you, if you're not writing code,
how does everybody keep focused on what are we building?
Well, first, basic mock-ups and research, right?
Like what do we even want to build?
There's a little bit of that that goes on.
But then very quickly, you get to the prototype stage.
Like build a prototype, let's iterate on the prototype
really, really rapidly.
And that's what we do at Discourse.
And that's what we demoed to get our seed funding
for Discourse was the alpha version of Discourse
that we had running and ready to go.
And it was very, it was bad.
I mean, it was, I'll just tell you it was bad.
We have screenshots of it, and I'm just like embarrassed
to look at it now.
But it was the prototype.
We were figuring out like what's working,
what's not working.
'Cause there's such a broad gap between
the way you think things will work in your mind
or even on paper, and the way they work
once you sit and live in the software,
like actually spend time living and breathing on software,
so different.
So my philosophy is get to a prototype,
and then what you're really optimizing for
is speed of iteration, like how you can turn the crank,
how quickly can we iterate?
That's the absolutely critical metric
of any software project.
And I had a tweet recently that people liked,
and I totally, this is so fundamental to what I do,
is like if you wanna measure the core competency
of any software tech company,
it's the speed at which somebody can say,
hey, we really need this word in the product
changed to this word, right?
Because it will be more clear to the users,
like what, like instead of respond,
it's reply or something.
But there's some, from the conception of that idea
to how quickly that single word can be changed
in your software and rolled out to users,
that is your life cycle.
That's your health, your heartbeat.
If your heartbeat is like super slow,
you're basically dead.
No, seriously.
If it takes two weeks or even a month
to get that single word change,
they're like, oh my God, this is a great idea.
That word is so much clearer.
I'm talking about like a super,
like everybody's on board for this change.
It's not like, let's just change a word 'cause we're bored.
It's like, this is an awesome change.
And then it takes months to roll out.
It's like, well, you're dead.
Like you can't iterate.
You can't, how are you gonna do anything, right?
So anyway, about the heartbeat,
it's like get the prototype and then iterate on it.
That's what I view as like the central tenet
§10Transcript · 59:18–1:06:17
of modern software development.
- That's fascinating that you put it that way.
It's actually, so I work in, I build autonomous vehicles.
And when you look at what,
maybe compare Tesla to most other automakers,
the psych, the whatever, the heartbeat for Tesla
is literally days now in terms of they can over the air
deploy software updates to all their vehicles,
which is markedly different than every other automaker,
which takes years to update a piece of software.
And so, and that's reflected in everything that's,
the final product, it's reflected in really
how slowly they adapt to the times.
- And to be clear, I'm not saying being a hummingbird
is the goal either.
It's like, you don't want a heartbeat that's like so fast.
It's like you're just freaking out.
But like, it is a measure of health.
You should have a healthy heartbeat.
It's up to, for people listening to this,
decide what that means, but it has to be healthy.
It has to be reasonable 'cause otherwise
you're just gonna be frustrated 'cause like,
that's how you build software.
You make mistakes, you roll it out, you live with it.
You see what it feels like and say,
oh God, that was a terrible idea.
Oh my gosh, this could be even better if we did Y, right?
You turn the crank and then the more you do that,
the faster you get ahead of your competitors ultimately
because it's rate of change, right?
Delta V, right?
How fast are you moving?
Well, within a year, you're gonna be miles away
by the time they catch up with you, right?
Like that's the way it works.
And plus users, like as a software developer,
I love software that's constantly changing
because I don't understand people get super pissed off
when like, oh, they changed the software on me.
How dare they?
I'm like, yes, change the software.
Change it all the time, man.
That's what makes this stuff great
is that it can be changed so rapidly
and become something that is greater than it is now.
Now granted, there's some changes that suck, I admit.
I've seen it many times.
But in general, it's like,
that's what makes software cool, right?
Is that it is so malleable.
Like fighting that is like weird to me
'cause it's like, well, you're fighting the essence
of the thing that you're building.
Like that doesn't make sense.
You wanna really embrace that.
Not to be a hummingbird,
but like embrace it to a healthy cycle of your heartbeat.
- So you talk about that people really don't change.
It's true.
That's why probably a lot of the stuff you write about
in your blog probably will remain true.
- There's a flip side of the coin.
People don't change.
So investing in understanding people
is like learning Unix in 1970
because nothing has changed, right?
Like all those things you've learned about people
will still be valid 30, 40 years from now.
Whereas if you learn the latest JavaScript framework,
that's gonna be good for like two years, right?
- Exactly.
So, but if you look at the future of programming,
so there's a people component,
but there's also the technology itself.
Do you, what do you see as the future of programming?
Will it change significantly?
Or as far as you can tell,
people are ultimately programming
and so it will not,
it's not something that you foresee changing
in any fundamental way.
- Well, you gotta go look back
on sort of the basics of programming.
And one of the things that always shocked me
is like source control.
Like I didn't learn anything about source control.
Now granted, I graduated from college in 1992,
but I remember hearing from people
like as late as like 1998, 1999,
like even maybe today,
they're not learning source control.
And to me, it's like,
well, how can you not learn source control?
That is so fundamental to working with other programmers,
working in a way that you don't lose your work.
Like just basic software,
the literal bedrock of software development
is source control.
Now you compare today, like GitHub, right?
Like Microsoft bought GitHub,
which I think was an incredibly smart acquisition move
on their part.
Now they have anybody who wants like reasonable
source control to go sign up on GitHub.
It's all set up for you, right?
There's tons of walkthroughs, tons of tutorials.
So from the concept of like,
has programming advanced from say 1999?
It's like, well, hell, we have GitHub.
I mean, my God, yes, right?
Like it's massively advanced over what it was.
Now as to whether programming is significantly different,
I'm gonna say no,
but I think the baseline of like what we view
as like fundamentals will continue to go up
and actually get better.
Like source control, for example.
That's one of the fundamentals that has gotten,
I mean, hundreds of orders of magnitude better
than it was 10, 20 years ago, right?
- So those are the fundamentals.
Let me introduce two things that maybe you can comment on.
So one is mobile phones.
So that could fundamentally transform what programming is,
or maybe not, maybe you can comment on that.
And the other one is artificial intelligence,
which promises to, in some ways,
to do some of the programming for you,
is one way to think about it.
So it's really what a programmer is,
is using the intelligence that's inside your skull
to do something useful.
The hope with artificial intelligence
is that it does some of the useful parts for you
the way you don't have to think about it.
So do you see smartphones,
the fact that everybody has one,
and they're getting more and more powerful
as potentially changing programming?
And do you see AI as potentially changing programming?
- Okay, so that's good.
So smartphones have definitely changed.
I mean, since, I guess, 2010 is when
they really started getting super popular.
I mean, in the last eight years,
the world has literally changed, right?
Like, everybody carries a computer around,
and that's normal.
I mean, that is such a huge change in society.
I think we're still dealing with a lot of the positive
and negative ramifications of that, right?
Like, everybody's connected all the time,
everybody's on the computer all the time.
That was my dream world as a geek, right?
But it's like, be careful what you ask for, right?
Like, wow, now everybody has a computer,
and it's not quite the utopia
that we thought it would be, right?
Computers can be used for a lot of stuff
that's not necessarily great.
So to me, that's the central focus of the smartphone
is just that it puts a computer in front of everyone,
granted a small, small-ish touchscreen computer.
But as for programming, like, I don't know.
I don't think that, I've kind of, over time,
come to subscribe to the Unix view of the world
when it comes to programming.
It's like, you want to teach these basic command line things,
and that is just what programming's gonna be
for, I think, a long, long time.
I don't think there's any magical, like, visual programming
that's gonna happen.
I just, I don't know.
I've, over time, have become a believer
in that Unix philosophy of just, you know,
they kind of had it right with Unix.
That's gonna be the way it is for a long, long time.
And we'll continue to, like I said, raise the baseline.
The tools will get better, it'll get simpler,
but it's still fundamentally gonna be command line tools,
you know, fancy IDEs.
That's kind of it for the foreseeable future.
I'm not seeing any visual programming stuff on the horizon.
'Cause you kind of think, like,
what do you do on a smartphone
that would be directly analogous to programming?
Like, I'm trying to think, right?
And there's really not much.
- So, not necessarily analogous to programming,
but the kind of things that,
the kind of programs you would need to write
might need to be very different.
- Yeah.
- And the kind of languages, I mean,
but I probably also subscribe to the same,
just because everything in this world
might be written in JavaScript.
- Oh yeah, that's already happening.
I mean, discourse is a bet.
§11Transcript · 1:06:18–1:13:05
Discourse is itself JavaScript,
is another bet on that side of the table.
And I still strongly believe in that.
So I would say smartphones have mostly a cultural shift,
more than a programming shift.
Now, your other question was about artificial intelligence
and, like, sort of devices predicting
what you're gonna do.
I do think there's some strength to that.
I think artificial intelligence is kind of overselling it
in terms of what it's doing.
It's more like, people are predictable, right?
People do the same things.
Like, let me give you an example.
One check we put into discourse
that's in a lot of big commercial websites is,
say you log in from New York City now,
and then an hour later, you log in from San Francisco.
It's like, well, hmm, that's interesting.
How did you get from New York to San Francisco in one hour?
So at that point, you're like, okay,
this is a suspicious login at that point.
So we would alert you.
It's like, okay, but that's not AI, right?
That's just a heuristic of, like,
how did you in one hour get 2,000 miles, right?
That doesn't, I mean, you're on a VPN,
there's other ways it's happened,
but that's just a basic prediction
based on the idea that people pretty much
don't move around that much.
Like, they may travel occasionally,
but nobody, I mean, unless you're a traveling salesman
that's literally traveling the world every day,
like, there's so much repetition and predictability
in terms of things you're going to do.
And I think good software anticipates your needs.
Like, for example, Google, I think it's called Google Now
or whatever that Google thing is that predicts your commute
and predicts based on your phone location,
like, where are you every day?
Well, that's probably where you work, that kind of stuff.
I do think computers can get a lot better at that,
but I hesitate to call it like full-blown AI.
It's just computers getting better at like,
first of all, they have a ton of data
'cause everybody has a smartphone.
Now all of a sudden we have all this data
that we didn't have before about location,
about like, you know, communication,
and feeding that into some basic heuristics
and maybe some fancy algorithms
that turn it into predictions of anticipating your needs,
like a friend would, right?
Like, oh, hey, I see you're home.
Would you like some dinner, right?
Like, let's go get some food
'cause that's usually what we do this time of day, right?
- In the context of actually the active programming,
do you see IDEs improving
and making the life of programming better?
- I do think that is possible
'cause there's a lot of repetition in programming, right?
Oh, you know, Clippy would be the bad example of,
oh, I see, it looks like you're writing a for loop.
But there are patterns in code, right?
Like, and actually libraries are kind of like that, right?
Like, rather than go, you know,
code up your own HTTP request library,
it's like, well, you'd use one of the existing ones
that we have that's already troubleshot, right?
That's not AI per se, it's just, you know,
building better Lego bricks, bigger Lego bricks
that have more functionality in them
so people don't have to worry
about the low-level stuff as much anymore.
Like WordPress, for example, to me is like a tool
for somebody who isn't a programmer to do something.
I mean, you can turn WordPress into anything.
It's kind of crazy actually through plugins, right?
And that's not programming per se.
It's just Lego bricks stacking WordPress elements, right?
And a little bit of configuration glue.
So I would say maybe in a broader sense,
what I'm seeing like, there'll be more gluing
and less like actual programming.
And that's a good thing, right?
'Cause most of the stuff you need
is kind of out there already.
- You said 1970s Unix.
Do you see PHP and these kind of old remnants
of the early birth of programming
remaining with us for a long time?
Like you said, Unix in itself.
Do you see ultimately, you know,
this stuff just being there out of momentum?
- I kind of do.
I mean, I was a big believer in Windows early on
and I was a big, you know, I was like,
Unix, what a waste of time.
But over time I've completely flipped on that
where I was like, okay, the Unix guys were right.
And pretty much Microsoft and Windows were kind of wrong,
at least on the server side.
Now on the desktop, right, you need a GUI,
you need all that stuff.
And yeah, the two philosophies,
like Apple built on Unix, effectively Darwin.
And on the desktop it's a slightly different story,
but on the server side where you're gonna be programming,
now it's a question of where the programming's gonna be.
Is it gonna be a lot more like client-side programming?
'Cause technically, Discourse is client-side programming.
The way you get Discourse,
we deliver a big ball of JavaScript,
which is then executed locally.
So we're really using a lot more local computing power.
We'll still retrieve the data, obviously.
We have to display the posts on the screen and so forth.
But in terms of like sorting and a lot of the basic stuff,
we're using the host processor.
But to the extent that a lot of programming
is still gonna be server-side,
I would say, yeah, the Unix philosophy definitely won.
And there'll be different veneers over Unix,
but it's still, if you peel away one or two layers,
it's gonna be Unix-y for a long,
I think Unix won, I mean, so definitively.
- It's interesting to hear you say that,
because you've done so much excellent work
on the Microsoft side in terms of backend development.
Cool.
So what's the future hold for Jeff Atwood?
I mean, the discourse, continuing the discourse
in trying to improve conversation on the web?
- Well, discourse is what I viewed as a,
and originally I called it a five-year project,
then really quickly revised that to a 10-year project.
So we started in early to the 2013,
that's when we launched the first version.
So we're still five years in.
This is the part where it starts getting good.
Like we have a good product now.
Discourse, there's any project you build in software,
it takes three years to build
what you want it to build anyway.
Like V1 is gonna be terrible, which it was.
But you ship it anyway,
'cause that's how you get better at stuff.
It's about turning the crank.
It's not about V1 being perfect, 'cause that's ridiculous.
It's about V1, then let's get really good at V1.1,
1.2, 1.3, like how fast can we iterate?
And I think we're iterating like crazy on discourse
to the point that like, it's a really good product now.
We have serious momentum.
And my original vision was,
I wanna be the WordPress of discussion,
meaning someone came to you and said,
I wanna start a blog.
Although the very question is kind of archaic now.
It's like, who actually blogs anymore?
But I wanted the answer to that to be,
it would be WordPress normally,
'cause that's the obvious choice
for blogging most of the time.
But if someone said, hey, I need a group of people
to get together and do something,
the answer should be discourse, right?
That should be the default answer for people.
'Cause it's open source, it's free,
doesn't cost you anything.
You control it, you can run it.
Your minimum server cost for discourse
is five bucks a month at this point.
They actually got the VPS prices down.
It used to be $10 a month for one gigabyte of RAM,
which we're, our dependent,
we have a kind of heavy stack.
Like there's a lot of stuff in discourse.
You need Postgres, you need Redis,
you need Ruby on Rails,
you need a sidekick for scheduling.
It's not a trivial amount of stuff,
'cause we were architected for like,
look, we're building for the next 10 years.
I don't care about shared PHP hosting.
That's not my model.
My idea is like, hey, eventually,
this is gonna be very cheap for everybody,
and I wanna build it right using, again,
higher, bigger building block levels, right,
that have more requirements.
- And there's a WordPress model of WordPress.org,
WordPress.com.
Is there a central hosting for discourse, or no?
- There is.
We're not strictly segmenting into the open source
versus the commercial side.
We have a hosting business.
§12Transcript · 1:13:06–1:19:42
That's how discourse makes money,
is we host discourse instances,
and we have a really close relationship
with our customers of the symbiosis
of them giving us feedback on the product.
We definitely weight feedback from customers
a lot heavier than feedback from somebody
who just wanders by and gives feedback.
But that's where we make all our money.
But we don't have a strict division.
We encourage people to use discourse.
The whole point is that it's free, right?
Anybody can set it up.
I don't wanna be the only person that hosts discourse.
That's absolutely not the goal.
But it is a primary way for us to build a business,
and it's actually kind of a great business.
I mean, the business is going really, really well
in terms of hosting.
- So I used to work at Google Research
as a company that's basically funded on advertisement.
So it's Facebook.
Let me ask if you can comment on it.
- I think advertisement at its best.
So you'd be extremely critical on what ads are,
but at its best, it's actually serving you.
In a sense, it's giving you,
it's connecting you to what you would want to explore.
So it's like related posts or related content.
It's the same.
That's the best of advertisement.
So discourse is connecting people based on their interest.
It seems like a place where advertisement at its best
could actually serve the users.
Is that something that you're considering thinking about
as a way to financially support the platform?
- That's interesting because I actually have
a contrarian view of advertising,
which I kind of agree with you.
I recently installed AdBlocker reluctantly
'cause I don't like to do that.
But the performance of the ads, man,
they're so heavy now, and it's just crazy.
So it's almost like a performance argument
more than I actually am pro ads.
And I have a contrarian viewpoint.
I agree with you.
If you do ads right, it's serving you stuff
you'll be interested in anyway.
I don't mind that.
That actually is kind of a good thing.
So plus I think it's rational to want to support
the people that are doing this work
through seeing their ads.
But that said, I run AdBlock now,
which I didn't want to do,
but I was convinced by all these articles,
like 30, 40 megabytes of stuff just to serve you ads.
- Yeah, it feels like ads now are like the experts exchange
of whenever you started Stack Overflow.
It's a little bit, it's overwhelming.
- Oh, there's so many companies in ad tech, though.
It's embarrassing.
You can do that.
Have you seen those logo charts of just the whole page?
You can't even see them, they're so small.
There's so many companies in this space.
But since you brought it up, I do want to point out
that very, very few discourse sites
actually run using an ad-supported model.
It's not effective.
It's too diluted, it's too weird, it doesn't pay well,
and users hate it.
So it's a combination of users hate it,
it doesn't actually work that well in practice.
In theory, yes, I agree with you.
If you had clean, fast ads that were exactly
the stuff you would be interested in, awesome.
We're so far from that, though, right?
Like, Google does an okay job.
They do retargeting and stuff like that,
but in the real world, discourse sites
rarely can make ads work.
It just doesn't work for so many reasons.
But you know what does work is subscriptions,
Patreon, affiliate codes for like Amazon,
of like just, oh, here's a cool yo-yo, click,
and then you click and go to Amazon,
and they get a small percentage of that,
which is fair, I think.
I mean, 'cause you saw the yo-yo on that site,
and you click through, and you bought it, right?
And that's fair for them to get 5% of that,
or 2% of that, or whatever it is.
Those things definitely work.
In fact, a site that I used to participate on a lot,
I helped the owner.
One of the things, I got them to switch to discourse.
I basically paid them to switch to discourse,
'cause I was like, look, you guys gotta switch.
I can't come here anymore, this is terrible software.
But I was like, look, and on top of that,
like, you're serving people ads that they hate.
Like, you should just go full on Patreon,
'cause he had a little bit of Patreon.
Go full on Patreon, do the Amazon affiliates thing,
for any Amazon links that get posted,
and just do that, and just triple down on that stuff.
And that's worked really well for them,
and this creator in particular.
So that stuff works, but traditional ads,
I mean, definitely not working, at least on discourse.
- So last question.
You've created the Code Keyboard.
I've programmed most of my adult life
on a Kinesis keyboard.
I have one upstairs now.
Can you describe what a mechanical keyboard is,
and why is it something that makes you happy?
- Well, you know, this is another fetish item, really.
Like, it's not required.
You can do programming on any kind of keyboard, right?
Even like an on-screen keyboard, oh God,
that's terrifying, right?
But you could.
I mean, if you look back at the early days of computing,
there were chiclet keyboards, which are,
I mean, those are awful, right?
But-- - What's a chiclet keyboard?
- Oh, God, okay, well, it's just like
thin rubber membranes.
- Oh, the rubber ones, oh no.
- Super bad, right? - Yeah.
- So it's a fetish item.
All that really says is, look, I care really about keyboards,
'cause the keyboard is the primary method
of communication with the computer, right?
So it's just like having a nice mic for this podcast.
You want a nice keyboard, right?
'Cause it has a very tactile feel.
I can tell exactly when I press the key.
I get that little click, so oh, and it feels good.
And it's also kind of a fetish item.
It's like, wow, I care enough about programming
that I care about the tool, the primary tool,
that I use to communicate with the computer,
make sure it's as good as it feels good to use for me,
and like, I can be very productive with it.
So to be honest, it's a little bit of a fetish item,
but a good one.
It indicates that you're serious,
it indicates you're interested,
it indicates that you care about the fundamentals,
'cause you know what makes you a good programmer?
Being able to type really fast, right?
Like, this is true, right?
So a core skill is just being able to type fast enough
to get your ideas out of your head, into the code base.
So just practicing your typing
can make you a better programmer.
- It is also something that makes you,
well, makes you enjoy typing, correct?
The actual act, something about the process,
like I play piano.
- It's tactile.
There's a tactile feel that ultimately
feeds the passion, makes you happy.
- Right, no, totally, that's it.
I mean, and it's funny,
'cause artisanal keyboards have exploded,
like Massdrop has gone ballistic with this stuff.
There's probably like 500 keyboard projects
on Massdrop alone.
And there's some other guy I follow on Twitter,
I used to write for the site, The Tech Report,
way back in the day.
And he's like, every week he's just posting
like what I call keyboard porn of like,
just cool keyboards, like,
"Oh my God, those look really cool," right?
That's like, how many keyboards does this guy have?
It's kind of like me with yo-yos.
How many yo-yos do you have?
How many do you need?
Well, technically one, but I like a lot.
I don't know why.
So same thing with keyboards.
So yeah, they're awesome.
Like I highly recommend anybody
who doesn't have a mechanical to research it,
look into it and see what you like.
And you know, it's ultimately a fetish item,
but I think these sort of items,
these religious artifacts that we have
are part of what make us human.
Like that part's important, right?
- It's kind of what makes life worth living.
- Yeah, it's not necessary in the strictest sense,
but ain't nothing necessary if you think about it, right?
Like, so yeah, why not?
§13Transcript · 1:19:44–1:20:02
So sure.
- Jeff, thank you so much for talking today.
- Yeah, you're welcome.
Thanks for having me.
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)