For instance, I launched a bunch of games that are, frankly, more fun to watch, than to play (e.g. an All-hands meeting simulator: https://rafsters.itch.io/all-hands) or little tools this one https://sonnet.io/posts/reactive-hole/ (it's stupid, completely replaceable, but somewhat adorable).
I come from a family with 4 generations of carpenters. It's a profession more similar to software engineering that most engineering jobs I can think of. The main difference is that in our domain so often the results of our work just don't feel real.
If you're in this situation and this frustrates you, either build something small that people would use OR go ahead build something useless, but intentionally.
Ha! Fantastic.
> I come from a family with 4 generations of carpenters. It's a profession more similar to software engineering that most engineering jobs I can think of. The main difference is that in our domain so often the results of our work just don't feel real.
That is the core issue I have with software development, it can feel ephemeral and extremely temporary.
My remediation for this is partially game development too, since the artifact you create is immersive and directly enjoyed by others, it can make you feel surprisingly connected to the world.
Contrast that to a fine piece of furniture which barring fire or flood can just sit abandoned in a warehouse for 300 years and then be even more valuable than it was initially.
Though calculus plays a role in information theory (and of course in some application domains such as computational fluid dynamics and machine learning).
Software engineering is more like a trade or craft, except that it's new and still evolving.
In software, we started with a programmable loom, stagnated for a few centuries, then all at once had tools and systems too complex to understand all of their implications.
It would be like taking apothecaries from the 1700s and putting them in the middle of a massive industrial chemical plant and hoping they make useful things that don't break easily or have design flaws.
Hi Aaron! And, yes, you're 100% correct--I've had more of those recently so needed an outlet. I'm (mildly) sorry you had to go through this again.
"Make the world a better place?"
to the agenda
It's a really fun workflow: I doodle on my tablet, airdrop the psd, convert to PSB (makes skinning/rigging easier) and import into Unity to animate.
What makes it fun/rewarding is the short feedback loop, in less than 1-2 minutes you get something to play with.
90% of the side projects I embark in are likely to have no commercial value, but are pretty cool, at least I’d like to think.
It’s nice to hear others are the same or at least enjoy the journey. Maybe this will be the motivation I need to starting releasing them “as-is” which is more of a “journey included, destination not determined” state...
You know non-software nerdy hacker stuff.
Blog post: https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~azh/blog/makinguselessstuff.html
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256867
Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/njcpxt/why_i_p...
The notion of doing something for which I don't care about github stars or readability or even good programming practices (1000L files!) it's SO FREEING!
Thanks for that article, it has helped me found the joy I had when I was just poking around on the computer, which I've missed now that I'm a "professional"...
You say "haven't quite figured out" - does that imply there are things you wanted to convert but didn't see the path for, or that the question hasn't truly come up?
it's a blessing that some (physical or not at all) toys still exist without being monetized.. although the trends with everything-being-appz might kill that some day
maybe OT, but some 10+y ago, i passed through few continents and cultures within 3-4 months, and while looking for toys for the kids to bring home from that journey, in plenty of places, i realized something.. the culture/society is somehow representable by what toys it makes for it's kids. Somewhat like the cultural dimensions thing, but in different aspects.. Like shallow vs deep, curiousness vs just-grinding, beautiful vs ugly, well crafted vs cheaply, etc. And funny, Rich/expensive as $$$ doesnot always correspond to richness of toy-experience/perception. Of course it's rather subjective, YMMV
Can you give some examples?
I've spent the last 7 years doing a lot of travelling around Asia, India, and Europe. I've observed quite the opposite, so I'm curious to know what you've seen that I've missed.
Currently I live in Vietnam and I polled a couple of Vietnamese people who are sitting with me about what their children play with (it turned into a really interesting breakfast conversation, so thanks!).
Their answers:
Boys play with cars, water guns, toy soldiers, and such. Girls play with dolls, toy kitchens, toy houses. Both play with modeling clay, coloring pens etc. (or Lego if the parents are progressive). Boys role play as soldiers, girls as princesses. Both role play as things like shopkeepers. This also includes data from people's childhoods 30 year's ago so I don't think it's a sign of Westernization. The main difference over the past 30 years is more plastic (of course) and that many people are much richer now. The main difference I've seen is that electric bikes for older children/teens are very popular here (I think bikes are a tool rather than a toy though).
This seems very similar to what children in Europe play with, and ties in with my observations in other countries. But of course, even a lifetime of travel would only give me insight into a fraction of cultures so more info is welcome.
The big exception is in remote areas in the countryside where people are very poor and can't afford many toys.
Maybe the problem is that what is called/accepted as "serious" is the opposite of it? A toy for shapeing a mind (of kids) may be looooots more serious/important that some $$$$$ made per-day.. kind-a the 4th planet the little prince visited..
It's only with the heart that one can see clearly. What's essential, is invisible to the eye.Like, I just added printer support.. https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1413803026062745600
But for the sake of the trees I'm making it grueling https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1414411610844803072 https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1414678420177440769
Does anyone even own a printer these days? Who knows? Don't care! The feature's true purpose is to try and draw out a smile, and from there maybe a look. The fact it actually works is a nice side effect.
While Aaron's essay approaches the analogy from the perspective of those building, the linked essay approaches it from the market's perspective. For builders, don't take yourself so seriously -- but on the flip side, don't be so quick to write new things off as silly.
I came across an article[1] recently that suggests that everything we do doesn’t have to turn into a business. I get why people want that, but my anxiety dropped a bit when I decided to just build the thing I wanted to.
[1] https://repeller.com/trap-of-turning-hobbies-into-hustles/
I'm happy developers have the ability to build and work on things they love. And create something fun.
But, at the same time, endless warnings about the seriousness of toys becoming monster businesses would be more believable if aborting companies and anti-trust wasn't still a shitshow a century after the big trusts.
This isn't the author's fault, but mixing "Let's have a conversation on Big Tech." with warnings about havoc seems disingenuous at best.
We understand that organizations are these complex things that take over everything and shit everywhere. And at the same time build things that make you smile and facilitate community.
We don't as citizens have all the tools to manage that without drama.
I guess the one thing I've realized is the problem with this is the one more feature trap. Sometimes those people who like your toy will never pay for it, which may be fine depending on your goals, but the issue is there just as relentlessly demanding as paying customers. It's demoralizing to have a side-hobby project which you don't want to monetize but still has all the demands from "adopters/customers" that a paid solution would. It just destroys your passion for that project because it ultimately it just becomes work.
Really charging for a product is great and I think hacker culture seems to dismiss it because its not in the ethos but if there's anything in retrospect I think I've learned so far with my many failed side-projects is charging for them is the best way to have a great personal experience and best experience for who your building that product for. Mostly because it aligns incentives appropriately.
As much as I've enjoyed some of my passion projects I can't think of one I ended up "finishing" which I wouldn't get some monetary gain from. Because let's be honest whose passionate about setting up a Jenkins server, or implementing git checks, writing unit tests or creating onboarding documentation for cranky free or OS users? At a certain point a successful side-project/product requires you to do things you wont enjoy doing, and honestly some of those things may be the most important things you do for the "success" of that side-project/product.
I'd rather be spending that time with loved ones, enjoying the sun, which is ultimately far more rewarding than a few git stars or upvotes for ego. With that being said I think if you utilize this approach which is basically just freemium for B2B like projects it could be a powerful step towards finding your ideal customer and getting paid users, but it has to be just that a step towards acquiring paid users.
Just my 2c
I always thought Airbnb was an awful idea. I didn't pay attention to it for a long time, except to be surprised it was still around when I would see it mentioned. I'm sure the big hotel companies feel worse about that mentality than I do, though it's probably a good thing I'm not a venture capitalist.