Six principles when creating new things.

Paul Graham.
February 2008.
The violent reaction to the release of Arc ^[1] had unexpected consequences: I realized
that I have my own philosophy when creating things. Main claim
The most distinct critics have been that Arc looks
unfinished. A couple of thousand lines of macros is all I did for
few years of work? Why I did not do applied tasks?


While I was thinking about these comments, it suddenly dawned on me
how familiar were such reviews. People responded in the same way about
Viaweb ^[2] , Y Combinator and about most of my articles .


When we launched Viaweb, it only caused grins from venture capitalists.
capitalists and other "experts" in e-commerce. There were only two of us and
we worked in a regular apartment, in 1995 it didn't look so cool
like now. The project that we created, in their opinion, was not even considered
software. They understood software as
large, monolithic program under Windows, and Viaweb -
The first web application they ever saw looked like a regular website.
Their attitude towards us became dismissive when
they found out that Viaweb is not processing credit transactions
cards (we didn't actually do it in the first year
existence of the project). Processing credit card transactions for them was
the cornerstone of e-commerce. Credit card transaction processing
- it sounded serious and impressive.
')
However, oddly enough, Viaweb defeated all competitors.

When we launched Y Combinator, the reaction was almost identical. Project
seemed frivolous. Then venture investment meant millions
dollars invested in a small number of startups based on people
who have proven their worth after months of serious
business negotiations; under the conditions described in the document thickness of
thirty centimeters. Y Combinator seemed insignificant. Of course,
it is too early to say whether Y Combinator will repeat Viaweb’s success, but judging by
the number of attempts to clone our idea, many believe that we
groped something interesting.
I have no other indicator of success of my articles except
number of views, but the reaction to them has changed from that
when i was just starting out. Then the reaction of the trolls on Slashdot.org, if
translate into human language, was about the following: "Who is this guy such
to cover this topic? Such a short article written by such
in ordinary language can not say anything useful in a certain area, in
while people with advanced degrees are writing thick books on this
topic. "Now a new generation of trolls lives on
new sites, they no longer ask "Who is this guy? .."

People say about Arc the same as they said at first about
Viaweb, Y Combinator and about my articles. Why such a similarity? Like me
understood, the answer is that I have the same “handwriting” in
all four projects.

The essence of my method: I like to find (a) simple solutions (b) to no one
noticed problems (c) that really need to be solved (d)
providing solutions in as free a style as possible (e) starting with raw
version 1 (e) and constantly improving it.

When I first formulated these principles, it turned out to be practical.
recipe for generating a negative reaction. Although simple
solutions are always better; they are not as impressive as complex ones. People
by definition, they consider non-essential problems
notice Providing a solution in a simple form implies that
a person will have to break his head to understand it, and not
just experience the thrill of the dazzling view of the complex
solutions. Starting with raw version 1 implies that everything
initial efforts will be minor and incomplete.

I, of course, noticed that people can not grab a new idea from the first
times. I thought that the reason for this in most cases is
dumb mind, but now I understand that everything is not so simple. As well as
counter-investor ^[3] , everyone who follows the principles mentioned is doomed
do what the average person seems wrong.

This is the essence, as well as the counter-investor strategy. Such
strategy gives all the benefits that other people miss,
trying to look impressive. If you work on undetected
problems, then the likelihood of finding some new things is much
higher, because there are few competitors here. If you provide solutions in
free style, then you (and) do not spend the effort to make them look
impressively (b) avoid the danger of deceiving yourself and your
users. The advantage of the “start with raw version 1 and then
improve it "is that the improvement solutions from the version
the version will come from the outside, and quite unexpectedly.


In the case of Viaweb, the simple solution was to keep the software
software running on the server. An unnoticed problem was
automatic website generation: in 1995 all online stores were
designed by hand, designers, but we understood that this approach is not
give in to scaling. The most significant part of the project was
not at all processing credit card transactions, but generating a graphic
design. The mechanism for providing free-form solutions was me,
who came to meet with potential customers in jeans and
t-shirt. And the raw version 1, as I recall, was less than
10,000 lines of code, at the same time we launched the project.

The use of such a strategy goes beyond programming, startups and
writings of articles. Perhaps this technique can be used for any
creative activity. And absolutely exactly that it can be applied.
in painting: just this was done by Cezanne and
Klee .

In Y Combinator, we rely on this technique, in the sense that we
We encourage our startups to work in this style. Under your nose
There are always some new ideas, so always look out for simple
things that are not noticed by anyone - later they will seem to everyone
obvious. Pay particular attention to the problems that
got lost because of a general delusion, or because of trying to do something that only seems
impressive. Always look for the root of the problem before taking up
decision. And do not try to look coordinated, the main thing is
the product is what wins in perspective. Also, run
project as soon as possible, in this way users will let you know
that it was necessary to create in reality.

A classic example of this approach is Reddit ^[4] . When Reddit was launched,
it seemed that this project does not make sense. Not loaded with graphics
minimalistic design that did not even draw on the design. But reddit
Solved a pressing problem: show what's new. As a result, the project became
massive. Now that Reddit already exists in people's minds, it seems that
This idea was obvious. People see reddit and think that it
the founders were just lucky, but like other things like that, it’s just
seems like luck. Reddit's so hard rowed against
the currents that the current has unfolded and now he himself carries them through the water.

So when you see something like Reddit and think, “I would like to
come up with something like that ”- remember: such ideas are around you. But you
ignore them simply because they seem wrong.

---

^[1] New Lisp dialect created by Paul Graham: arclanguage.org
^[2] A web application with which you can create your online store in a few minutes in a browser window. Written in Lisp. Later was sold to Yahoo, is now here .
^[3] An investor who invests money contrary to general trends in the market. In the original - Contrarian investment .
^[4] News site; rating of a news is determined by the users themselves, by voting. ( link )