I really don't like the bias in the headline. It seems to imply that coding isn't something you'd do after you got growth.

Why not "How Coding Helps Y Combinator Manage Growth" or "Paul Graham Keeps Coding to Help Y Combinator Keep Growing"?

I think the implication is that pg would be too busy running YC to code. Even if it doesn't happen to him, it happens to a lot of founders.

I think there are a lot of founders who don't code on their company's product anymore (though it's apparently not a pure factor of size – Gates and Zuckerberg are known for actually writing code many years in), but it'd be weird if they didn't write code at all. It would imply that writing code is never the most efficient way to accomplish a task that they want solved. Even with infinite resources at your beck and call, it's often faster to write a quick script than to explain to someone else what that script should do (and to continue to do so through whatever iterations seem appropriate).

I'm tempted to say that those who don't continue to hack were never really hackers in the first place. For a hacker, writing code is just one of the normal ways to interact with a computer.

I think there's an even more subtle implication that pg is too busy (and should be) to code, yet he still CHOOSES to continue to code. Obviously it would be really easy to find someone to do the coding work - whether keeping up with HN or the creating investor/startup interface - but his choice to continue coding is a statement he and the article are making.

There is a bias with many management and business people, they think coding is low level cruft done by expendable people and once you become a manager or start doing business you start doing the real work and don't have to deal with this lesser things.

Sadly I've seen this a lot. Even more sad is that I know programmers that have become managers, no longer write code, and loathe the days they were simply coders. It pains me.

The other extreme is people who can never see technical entrepreneurs as anything other than coders.

A week ago I was having coffee with the new VP of Marketing for a company I consult to. Despite my background: MBA 8 years ago, founder of web startup that was acquired, several years in product management prior to that, the veep asked me why I didn't wan to be a programmer. What?

I still code, but I find it annoying when people perceive me as coder first, as though that invalidates my business credentials.

Maybe I'm putting out the wrong vibe, but I'd like to chalk this up to them being threatened by the idea that someone with a skillset they will never have can do all the same stuff they can.

Despite IBM Growth, Lou Gerstner Still Golfing

When your business outgrow "garage" level it's simply starts to generate MORE and INTERESTING questions than what you could work out yourself, so you just make the decision(give to others) and enjoy the feedback from the results..

It's not that you don't like to code, you just enjoy to be connected and entertained by more stuff.

Of course a great counter example is John Carmack - in there I think he is far more interested in the exact technical details than your average entrepreneur - btw he was never an entrepreneur, he is a "pure" engineer with obsession to optimize(and many other sides of course).

Do you think Sergey and Larry do any significant, production code these these days?

It's a good question. I'd bet maybe not production code but I'm sure they write some utilities and things for themselves.

Sorry to sound blunt but why is it a given that if a person is successful, it is surprising that he/she is doing "lesser" things? I never understood that notion.

If I was successful/rich/etc, I will still be coding on my free time. Heck, I will be washing my own dishes, buying my own groceries, driving myself and so on. And I know many other "rich/successful/etc" people who are exactly like that.

I think this answers your question: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2926948 : "I think the implication is that pg would be too busy running YC to code. Even if it doesn't happen to him, it happens to a lot of founders."

To me, the implication was, "Lots of somewhat famous / successful people become too 'busy' to do the thing that made them famous / successful," with code being one of them. (Or think of all the actors who are famous but now appear in maybe one movie every three years: what are they doing with their time?).

> Sorry to sound blunt but why is it a given that if a person is successful, it is surprising that he/she is doing "lesser" things?

If a top scientist/inventor/entrepreneur is doing routine tasks that he doesn't enjoy, he's losing time that could either be spent creating new amazing things or relaxing/recharging and enjoying his life.

If you enjoy any particular activity - driving or cooking - by all means keep doing it. But if you're capable of improving the lives of thousands or even millions of people, then hire a car and driver and work in the backseat of your Rolls Royce or whatever. The world will be net better for it.

(Though, coding doesn't fall into that routine task category - it being a creative action that sharpens the mind. Doing laundry does though, except on the off chance it's really relaxing and enjoyable for you.)

I'll take the bait. It seems possible to me that there could also be value in doing some routine tasks that you don't enjoy. Even for the top scientist/inventor/entrepreneur. I've tried to come up with a list of some reasons why, but I think they all eventually come down grounding. If you always have someone else performing a certain class of tasks for you, like unenjoyable routine tasks, you'll be disconnecting certain feedback loops and avoiding learning certain lessons.

I'll take for example cleaning up your house/apartment/room on your own. I've noticed that when my apartment gets messy it is usually an indicator of my internal mind state. It is a helpful indicator that there is something bothering me or something that needs to be dealt with. If I always had someone cleaning up for me, I might miss these types of indicators, and the whole of my performance might degrade (to the new loss of the world as you put it).

I also understand that people in the past have probably said this about all kinds of things that we now have machines or human specialization doing for us. So maybe what is more important is to make sure that while you are in your prime, or getting to your prime, you learn about which of these routine tasks are actually helping you, which you depend on for your mental well being, and better understanding the trade-offs if the decision to never have to do them again comes up. Maybe you don't need your entire house to be the canary in the coal mine - maybe a few house plants that you make sure to water yourself would do the job well enough ...

Good comment. I agree, especially in the case of people who have never had to do routine tasks.

Eventually though, you come face to face with the fact that you've only got 24 hours per day, every day, and it is possible to get maxed out. So for someone who has internalized the lessons of hard work, cleanliness, order, structure, whatever - then moving to more broadly expansive planes of action (or just relaxing/recharging/enjoying) seems a good tradeoff. I reckon there's other "canary" indicators - how much you've written lately if you're a writer, how much you've coded lately if you're a programmer, how the financial statements look if you're an investor, and so on.

But yeah, I agree. Good perspective, good discussing here.

There does come a point where you make more money hiring someone else to do your laundry and focusing on your job, so as I understand it rich people sometimes only do select mundane things they like doing.

Do you enjoy washing dishes? Why would you still be doing it?

> why is it a given that if a person is successful, it is surprising that he/she is doing "lesser" things?

Automation and delegation. Sounds evil but it isn't.

In the terminology of Paul Erdos, people who had stopped doing math had died. People whose blood had stopped flowing had simply left.

Despite Forbes Article, PG Still Reading, Commenting On Hacker News

It's true that one of the most productive things to do during a large meeting is program.

Often, the most productive thing to do is leave.

The day in my management career that I learned to walk in to a large meeting, say, "<Direct report R> will be making this decision for my team" and then walk out was the day I reclaimed my work life. It may sound sad to IC types, but particularly in large companies managers end up invited to meetings just because some random person wants to ensure official buy-in/approval.

I used to enjoy prototyping for the thing under discussion at the meeting. But those were small meetings.

Essay Request PG: How to Present Your Startup. I'd love to know what advice you give to all the YC companies about presenting in front of press and investors.

That wast fast! I thought it usually took you longer to write these :-)

(Kidding of course, thanks for pointing it out. I'm sure I read it at the time but forgot about it.)

Of course :-)

Is there a list of common problems Y founders make?

There's a general list of common mistakes here:

http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html

From Mistake 10: "People interested in local events (that one is a perennial tarpit)". Would you please give an example or elaborate a little bit more on that?

I fear I may heading for the tarpit...

This is one of those ideas that people think of, notice that no one is already doing it, and decide that there is therefore an opportunity. But the reason no one is already doing it is not that no one has thought of it. It's one of the most common startup ideas. The reason no one is doing it is (I believe) that users don't want it.

This article makes me wonder:

status-of-arc-p?

I hack a fair amount in it, less on it. I'd hoped to release a new version of News soon, and thus also a new version of Arc. But I am pretty busy with YC.

Feature request: readable URLs. /title-of-story, /title-of-story/comment/username, etc.

You should just get better at memorizing item id's.

Not sure if serious or just mildly autistic...

Thought and still think that(the reason) HN has small fonts, unreadable URLs etc(is) to not lower the bar for not-hackers. True?

When neither you, nor anybody else works any more on Arc, are you considering officially abandoning it and going back to vanilla Scheme or even Common Lisp, to make news.arc more reusable within the (larger) Scheme an Lisp communities?

Feature request: Some sort of API. The iHackernews API is okay when it works, which over the last few weeks has been about 30% of the time.

"true"...?

(values t nil)

that'll teach you not to ask yes-or-no questions.

This should come as no surprise. Writing code is a medium of expression like writing english or drawing or using a piece of software via a GUI.

Like most of us I imagine Paul would do all of these on a daily basis.

That's a really interesting thought. Is there any correlation between programming and writing abilities? (not that you were saying that) They're superficially dissimilar, but each is a creative endeavor that deals with formulating ideas and organizing them into a particular flow... It does seem that a number of great programmers are gifted writers, as well, but this could be blogger selection bias.

In my experience, a good coder is also a good writer and, if they get over the visceral fear of public speaking, a good speaker.

Love this quote: ”That’s how we deal with scale,” Graham says. “We write more software and hire people.”

Also true for startups.

I think it is good and very telling that PG still codes. I wonder if he uses arc?

Why downvoting? (Will help newbies like me)

I find funny the related post in forbes.com

Repelling Mosquitos After The Hurricane: DEET vs. Dengue Fever