<i>We get 17 seconds into your new startup pitch when I ask you if you're technical and you say yes.</i><p><i>A bunch of startup marketing mumbo-jumbo later and you tell me you're looking for a coder to help you.</i><p><i>WTF?! You said you were technical?!</i><p>Say what you mean. Ask if they are a programmer.
The first (only?) comment on the blog hits on an important point: I know lots of technical people who don't code. These people build networks, configure racks of equipment, and generally keep data centers running smoothly ... and couldn't code their way out of a SIGTRAP. (Contrary to this, I've met plenty of non-technical people who "repair" PCs and know how to click the UI of the latest malware removal tool.)<p>I understand that the target audience is the MBA who thinks that since he bought a laptop last week, he's now "technical," but it's an important distinction when your story is read by a bunch of technical geeks.<p><rant>Proofread your blog posts. This is why your blogging software allows you to create drafts - dump your rage into the editor and save the draft. Come back later after you've cooled down and fix your grammatical and spelling errors. Also, don't forget to pay some attention to organization.</rant>
><i>"You can't build stuff. You can't take an idea in your head and produce a product that works."</i><p>Yes. You certainly can.<p>Being able to "build" something doesn't mean writing all the code, performing all the welds or assembling all the parts. James Cameron didn't build his submarine that set the record for deepest dive, but he <i>most definitely</i> took an idea from his head and turned it into a product that <i>works</i>. He did so by assembling a team around him to accomplish his goals.<p>Why are programmers so set on believing that there is nothing near as important as "writing code" in a business? Being able to turn idea into product involves a hell of a lot more than writing the code. Sorry to tell you, lots of people can code.
Mostly OT: as a somebody who programs computers I dont enjoy the word 'coder'. For me personally it has the mental connotation of somebody who is just there to 'code' it up, who is given a spec from above to implement, somebody who doesn't need to have any creativity to do his part of the software assembly line.
I much prefer the titles 'programmer' or 'sw engineer' because they corelate with problem solving and creativity. Those are two traits without which a technical cofounder that's just a coder will probably be of less use.
Have to say, I feel like being a "non-coder" is becoming shorthand for calling someone second class in this tech startup ecosphere. As someone with lots to bring to the table, especially domain expertise, business acumen, marketing, design, etc etc. I always feel a bit on the outside looking in. I have started to learn to code but more so to become conversational with hackers/programmers/coders. I'll never be that good though, I know that. I might be able to get to the point where I can hack together a prototype or speak to someone like a conversational Spanish speaker speaks to a native Spanish speaker. But will that be good enough?<p>I feel like the point that needs to be made here is that EVERYONE has something to bring to the table. Everyone is good at something and on a TEAM, that's what matters. Sure a team of amazing coders can make something great, but a great product does not a great business make. Sometimes, ie PayPal and others, all coders create a hugely successful business. But Zuckerberg is not a great entrepreneur because he's a great coder. He's a great entrepreneur who happens to be able to code. So instead of worshipping at the alters of coders, and I have TONS of respect for what you guys can do, we need to acknowledge that a successful STARTUP is more than code. So much more. Its about assembling the right team with the right combination of skills. Coding is one of them sure, but to say its the only one and labeling someone who doesn't as "non-technical" like its a bad thing, negates the notion that a business runs on more than just what can be hacked together. If a car were just an engine, we'd still be driving model-Ts. What makes something beautiful, what makes it successful, what makes it sell for 1 billion dollars is the specific combination of skills and how they work in chorus to solve a need better than anyone else. And those skills are varied, complex, and come from a lot of different areas.
This post is highly reminiscent of a previous post... <a href="http://42floors.com/blog/posts/be-yourself-abnormal-people-create-abnormal-returns" rel="nofollow">http://42floors.com/blog/posts/be-yourself-abnormal-people-c...</a><p>The recurring theme is..."Don't be a faker. Don't be a poser."<p>My two cents is that most of us feel like we got to where we are by "Paying Our Dues" and resent others who seem to jump to the top without making the sacrifices we made.<p>The real truth is...we all have stories playing in our heads of who we are, and what we accomplished. It is very easy to look across the street and wonder why you had to work so hard, and other seem to just have life handed to them on a silver platter.<p>The reality is though, we have no idea what challenges they faced and overcame, and more importantly they have no control of how we perceive them.<p>Seeing a programmer in a suit, upsets you cuz its fake, but it really upsets you because you know it took a heck of a lot more than a suit to get funding. Boy would it suck if he got funding just for wearing a suit.<p>Seeing a non-coder claim to be a technical founder must suck because you are a real founder, who knows what it really takes, and you feel you have no right to claim you are a technical founder.<p>The truth is, we can write whatever story we want about ourselves, and you can choose to believe whatever stories you want to about others. None of it really matters...<p>At the end of the game, "The Pawn and the King both go back in the same box."<p>I can really relate to how the author feels within other context, but I know that the day I let go of those perspectives, was the day I grew my wings and learn to fly. The day I realized I could be whoever i wanted to be. THe day I realized that no one needs to die to make me king....<p>MOST IMPORTANTLY... to all you young ones starting out. The folks insisting you need to pay your dues for years and years and one day you will reach the top... Remember, those old folks are your competition, it is in their best interest to keep you down. Sure, their experience and sacrifice counts for something... but if you want to be a technical co-founder, by all means... It's Your Life. Be Whoever You Want to Be.
I find myself in an even stickier place. As a designer I work in HTML and CSS, borrow and implement other people's javascript to make my interfaces do nice things, and dance around in wordpress php, tumblr themeing, and the superficial code of other content management systems. Beyond that I certainly don't 'code'.<p>Sure I move around enough in ruby and python enough to make the pretty face I've designed work with the app and I certainly don't consider myself technical if asked, but I seem to be lightyears beyond the business or ideas person on the building side of things.<p>More than a superficial designer, less than a front end developer is one of the strangest places to be.
While this post is simplistic (we all know there are a lot of technical posers) and the conclusion (found in the title) is wrong, there are a few good points made along the way.<p>Technical does not have to equal coder, although you can flip it around (all coders are technical) so it's a simple case of affirming the consequent. Happens to a lot of people. There are other technical skills that are quite valuable other than "coding" as noted here. I consider a passionate network admin, DBA, or sysadmin just as (or more) valuable as a "coder"<p>This paragraph is good though:
"You can't build stuff. You can't take an idea in your head and produce a
product that works. You haven't had things break on you. You haven't spend hours looking for a mistyped space. You don't get in the zone. You've never been on pager duty. You haven't spend 10 years learning your craft. You're reliant on other people to make things for you."<p>It even applies to people who "know how to code" (which by definition are "coders." It all comes down to passion.<p>I have no CS degree, certs, and haven't finished many programming books. However, I've been one of the best techs at my last few gigs. Why? Because I'm interested and passionate about this stuff. I go home at night with a problem, figure it out in the shower, SSH in, and test it out. It's fun to me to fix the problem, I don't want to wait till tomorrow.<p>I spent time in school breaking our school's intranet and housing electronic lock system (successfully) which I showed to our IT folk and they fixed it. Took a lot of time, but it was fun.<p>I sit at home (and work) reading source code, RFCs, man pages etc, while others Google for the first response. They may be a little faster, but they'll have to Google next time they hit that issue. I gained understanding, and I won't forget that.
I see one exception to this rule, and it's something very specific.<p>If you're dealing with a very specific knowledge or domain and you're an expert in that field, I guess you could be a "technical non-coder"<p>For example: healthcare/medical, economy, statistics, etc Some of those can work their way around Matlab for example, but not create something on the web
I've spent 10 years coding, and I'd be equally useless on a team building CPUs. Similarly, I'd be equally useless on a team building a kernel.<p>A company of one isn't much use, the corporate form allows people to come together to build more than they could on their own.<p>Who really cares if someone is or isn't 'technical'. One of the important roles of a CEO is being the interface between capital and labour.<p>A good CEO with a decent grasp of technology and a little bit of money can put together a team, they are far from useless. Everyone has a role to play, it's extremely myopic to think someone can't build a company simply because they don't code.<p>I doubt Steve Jobs had any idea how to program an iPhone and I doubt much of his code had anything to do with the rise of Apple once he retook the reigns in the 90s.
>You can't build stuff. You can't take an idea in your head and produce a product that works.<p>>You haven't spend 10 years learning your craft. You're reliant on other people to make things for you.<p>I don't think that has been a problem for lots of people. Take Steve Jobs, as far as I'm aware, he didn't write any code for Apple. What would his answer be when asked, in relation to his company, "Are you technical"? I don't know, but as the founder of a technology company, I imagine he would say yes. Or something to that effect. He's pitching a tech product.<p>As many others have said, if you want to know if someone is a programmer, ask them.
The more painful part of the article is the subtext that a startup's "product" is by definition something built in a few months with RoR or Django.<p>For all the talk of how much angel and V.C. money is available for young companies, it's not going to do much if investors won't branch out into ACTUALLY new product areas.
I think this misses the true hardship of non-technical founders. I'm a programmer working with a non-technical cofounder and it isn't me vs her, I don't think I'm putting in more than her because she does the pitches, meetings, e-mails, finances, etc.<p>If you are a non-technical founder and you can prevent your technical founder from doing anything non-technical... you are pulling your weight!<p>That being said, the problems I have with a non-techie is that she doesn't understand the tech things:<p>1. E-mail is not a todo list, we have a bug tracking system.<p>2. Stop talking about "Your programmer friend said...", I understand you don't know technology and want to verify what I say but how is not understanding it from 2 people instead of 1 going to help?<p>3. Open Source is important, so yes we will be committing to our github once in awhile on company time, that is because we are using that project for the company.<p>4. Alpha/Beta is different than MVP. Just because something is ready to show you doesn't mean its ready to be shown to the world.
I don't even listen to a non-coders pitch these days as they can't do any of the real work.<p>Jason writes as though he understands the life of a coder. I love that. Perhaps that's the most important aspect of being a non-coder.<p>I've also noticed that non-technical people tend to care more about MBAs, degrees, and are easily woo'd by the name dropping of past employers. Whereas coders focus more on experience and live examples of work.
Yet another black versus white discussion. Technical versus non technical. Coder versus non coder.<p>The two cannot co-exist? You are either one or the other?
Can there be such a thing as semi-technical?<p>I have built products, coded them myself or with some oDesk help, and can at least read Python, PHP, and (less so) Ruby. I got the most technical MBA you can get (MIT Sloan) and have utmost respect for engineers.<p>I've run a chown -R from the root dir when I thought I was in my Wordpress dir and effectively killed the server. I've spent hours troubleshooting CodeIgniter problems and http 500 errors. For this, I have a Clintonian "I feel your pain" view towards programmers/coders/engineers/so-called-technical people.<p>So my point is this: I think it IS important, if you run a website, to try to build stuff on your own. But just because you can't build your own libraries doesn't mean you can't say you're "technical".<p>If someone asked me, I'd probably say "yes" but qualify it. I'm not a technical builder, but I understand what it takes to get technical things built.
Someone might be really good at managing networks or keeping a site going under heavy load, but they might not be good at programming. Are they non-technical? On the same front, someone who is good at coding, may not be the best person in the world for keeping a Web app under heavy load and managing traffic from around the world. Someone with an information systems engineering degree, for instance, may know how to code, but not that well, and still have an extensive technical background.<p>If you want to know if someone can program, ask them if they can program, and then ask them to what extent, what kind of programing they do, etc.
I think this is an overly simplistic dichotomy. There are definitely people who are "technical" who wouldn't be the ideal person to build out a big data startup's software (for example). As a founder, they might be more useful in shaping product vision, defining marketing strategy, doing business development etc, but not necessarily actually doing the hands on coding. Is this person technical? Certainly. Is this person building the product? No.
From what I've seen of the software/web world technical means just that: technical.<p>This includes but is not limited to Programmers, Operations, and even your Sales Engineers. I've seen Operations guys who understand technology orders of magnitude better than programmers at the same company.<p>What the author is referring to is slightly different and imho he badly expresses it. Being able to use the internet and an iPhone is not technical that is just internet savvy.
The legend goes that Abraham Lincoln had a terrible temper. Whenever someone upset him, he would write the fellow a
nasty letter and drop it in the mail and he would feel better. Years later it was discovered that his wife would
remove the letters from the mailbox and noone ever saw them.<p>While this post never told a lie and certainly didnt chop down any cherry trees i suspect it hurt more people than it helped.
Whatever.<p>I haven't been a 'coder' since 1994 yet I'm defiantly "technical". The teams I lead, AFAIK, don't question my contributions because I don't code. Nor are my designs less valid.<p>In fact, my years of involvement on the operations side of the house sometimes make my choice 'technical' choices more informed than what straight coders cook up.<p>Again, phooey.