If you're reading this abstract, you're not awesome enough. Attend this session to unlock the secrets of Jeff Atwood, world famous blogger and industry leading co-founder of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Learn how you too can determine clear goals for your future and turn your dreams into reality through positive-minded conceptualization techniques.* Within six to eight weeks, you'll realize the positive effects of Jeff Atwood's wildly popular Coding Horror blog in your own life, transporting you to an exciting new world of wealth, happiness and political power.
1 of 49
More Related Content
How to stop sucking and be awesome instead
2. How to Stop Sucking and Be
Awesome Instead
Jeff Atwood
Coding Horror, Stack Exchange, Stack Overflow
5. • This doesn't do what I need
• I can't figure out how to do what I need
• This is unnecessarily frustrating and
complex
• This breaks all the time
• It's so ugly I want to vomit
• It doesn't map to my understanding of the
universe
• I'm thinking about the tool, instead of my
work
6. And folks, let's be honest. Sturgeon
was an optimist. Way more than
90% of code is crap.
Al Viro
10. “The main reason we tend
to focus on the technical
rather than the human side
of the work is not because
it's more crucial, but
because it's easier to
do.”
16. “Software is a process, it's never finished, it's
always evolving. That's its nature. We know
our software sucks. But it's shipping! Next
time we'll do better, but even then it will be
shitty. The only software that's perfect is one
you're dreaming about. Real software
crashes, loses data, is hard to learn and hard
to use. But it's a process. We'll make it less
shitty. Just watch!”
20. Boyd’s Law of Iteration:
speed of iteration always beats quality of
iteration
Where you are today doesn’t matter so
much, compared to where you’re going
tomorrow.
21. My goal is to suck less every year.
codinghorror
23. One of my favorite business model
suggestions for [web] entrepreneurs is to find
an old UNIX command that hasn't yet been
implemented on the web, and fix that.
Marc Hedlund
24. talk, finger ICQ
LISTSERV DejaNews
ls Yahoo! directory
find, grep Google
rn Bloglines
pine Google Mail
mount Amazon S3
bash Yahoo! Pipes
wall Twitter
25. Blogger = public email messages (1999)
Instead of "Dear Bob, Check out this movie."
it's "Dear People I May or May Not Know
Who Are Interested in Film Noir, check out
this movie. If you like it, maybe we can be
friends."
26. Flickr = public photo sharing (2004)
"When we started the company, there were
dozens of other photosharing companies
such as Shutterfly, but on those sites there
was no such thing as a public photograph -- it
didn't even exist as a concept."
27. YouTube = public home videos (2005)
Bob Saget was on
to something.
Viewed 456 million
times… so far.
28. Twitter = public instant messaging (2006)
I don't think it's any coincidence that one of
the people responsible for Blogger is also
responsible for Twitter.
29. GitHub = public source control (2008)
“SourceForge is about projects. GitHub is
about people... A world of programmers
forking, hacking and experimenting. There is
merging, but only if people agree to do so, by
other channels... GitHub gives me my own
place to play. It lets me share my code the
way I share photos on Flickr.”
30. “Moreover, I’m sharing my code, for what it’s
worth to me to share my code... I am sharing
my code. I am not launching an open source
project. I am not beginning a search for like
minded developers to avoid duplication of
efforts. I am not showing up at someone
else’s door hat in hand, asking for commit
access. I am not looking to do battle with
Brook’s Law at the outset of my brainstorm.”
32. Stack Overflow = public learning (2008)
• Fun-size units of Q&A “work”
• Document how much we suck, so that
others might learn from it!
• Leave breadcrumb trails of our
awesomeness
33. Maximize the value of your keystrokes
If nobody
knows you did
{x}, did you get
all the benefits
of doing {x}?
34. The onus of “interestingness”
the freedom to totally suck in private
vs.
attempting to be awesome in public
35. If you you don't have any marketable skills, learn
some. It's the future. We have Khan Academy and
Wikipedia and Codecademy and almost the entire
world's collective knowledge at your fingertips.
Use it.
Carl Lange
37. In the information age, the barriers
just aren't there. The barriers are self
imposed.
John Carmack
38. “If you want to set off and go develop some
grand new thing, you don't need millions of
dollars of capitalization. You need enough
pizza and Diet Coke to stick in your
refrigerator, a cheap PC to work on, and the
dedication to go through with it. We slept
on floors. We waded across rivers.”
41. The world just isn’t that into you. Unless what
you're sharing …
• solves their problem
• provides useful information
• entertains them
• makes them feel like they rule
… why would they care?
42. Every time you share something – ask
yourself “so what?”
If you can't answer convincingly, reformulate
and try again.
43. If your thing in public isn’t awesome enough
(or sucks) that’s OK.
People won’t go out of their way to mock you.
They’ll just ignore it.
(people do remember successes, though)
46. How do I know if this matters?
What cool thing did you do for someone else
today?
(psst… Stack Overflow isn’t really a site
about programming, it’s where we trick peers
into reading, writing, experimenting, and
learning with each other.)
47. “It's better to be safe than sorry” is
such crap. You know what's better
than being safe? Being AWESOME.
codinghorror
48. 1. Embrace the Suck
2. Do It In Public
3. Pick Stuff That Matters
#atlassiansummit
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/the-first-rule-of-programming-its-always-your-fault.htmlLet’s endeavor to fix ourselves before accusing the world of being broken.
Not only is failure an option, failure is the default
Instead of spending three months fixing up this version in a sterile, isolated lab, you could be spending that same three month period listening to feedback from real live, honest-to-god,annoyingdedicated users of your software. Not the software as you imagined it, and the users as you imagined them, but as they exist in the real world. You can turn around and use that directed, real world feedback to not only fix all the sucky parts of version 1, but spend your whole development budget more efficiently, predicated on hard usage data from your users.Now, I'm not saying you should release crap. Believe me, we're all perfectionists here. But the real world can be a cruel, unforgiving place for us perfectionists. It's saner to let go and realize that when your software crashes on the rocky shore of the real world, disappointment is inevitable -- but fixable! What's important isn't so much the initial state of the software -- in fact, some say if you aren't embarrassed by v1.0 you didn't release it early enough -- but what you do after releasing the software.The velocity and responsiveness of your team to user feedback will set the tone for your software, far more than any single release ever could. That's what you need to get good at. Not the platonic ideal of shipping mythical, perfect software, but being responsive to your users, to your customers, and demonstrating that through the act of continually improving and refining your software based on their feedback. So to the extent that you're optimizing for near-perfect software releases, you're optimizing for the wrong thing.There's no question that, for whatever time budget you have, you will end up with better software by releasing as early as practically possible, and then spending the rest of your time iterating rapidly based on real world feedback.
Which is a more efficient use of your time? Duh.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/02/boyds-law-of-iteration.htmlColonel John Boyd was interested not just in any dogfights, but specifically in dogfights between MiG-15s and F-86s. As an ex-pilot and accomplished aircraft designer, Boyd knew both planes very well. He knew the MiG-15 was a better aircraft than the F-86. The MiG-15 could climb faster than the F-86. The MiG-15 could turn faster than the F-86. The MiG-15 had better distance visibility.The F-86 had two points in its favor. First, it had better side visibility. While the MiG-15 pilot could see further in front, the F-86 pilot could see slightly more on the sides. Second, the F-86 had a hydraulic flight control. The MiG-15 had a manual flight control.The standing assumption on the part of airline designers was that maneuverability was the key component of winning dogfights. Clearly, the MiG-15, with its faster turning and climbing ability, could outmaneuver the F-86.There was just one problem with all this. Even though the MiG-15 was considered a superior aircraft by aircraft designers, the F-86 was favored by pilots. The reason it was favored was simple: in one-on-one dogfights with MiG-15s, the F-86 won nine times out of ten.Boyd decided that the primary determinant to winning dogfights was not observing, orienting, planning, or acting better. The primary determinant to winning dogfights was observing, orienting, planning, and acting faster. In other words, how quickly one could iterate. Speed of iteration, Boyd suggested, beats quality of iteration.The next question Boyd asked is this: why would the F-86 iterate faster? The reason, he concluded, was something that nobody had thought was particularly important. It was the fact that the F-86 had a hydraulic flight stick whereas the MiG-15 had a manual flight stick.Without hydraulics, it took slightly more physical energy to move the MiG-15 flight stick than it did the F-85 flight stick. Even though the MiG-15 would turn faster (or climb higher) once the stick was moved, the amount of energy it took to move the stick was greater for the MiG-15 pilot.With each iteration, the MiG-15 pilot grew a little more fatigued than the F-86 pilot. And as he gets more fatigued, it took just a little bit longer to complete his OOPA loop. The MiG-15 pilot didn't lose because he got outfought. He lost because he got out-OOPAed.
By “embrace” I mean acknowledge that the sucking will always be there in some form, so the challenge is to learn from it, adapt and improve on it. That is what you should be optimizing for, the process of improvement.
The input box on twitter should be subtitled: BE INTERESTING. You are performing, not just being. So put some damn effort into it!
You don’t need to be John Carmack. This self-perpetuating cycle of people helping other people in public. Carmack shared his code; Quake, Doom, Wolf3D are all open source now!