I have known founders with 0 experience hack together god awful C++ programs that ran their business long enough for them to fund competent programmers.
Never underestimate the value of a persistent person!
Running it in production is the point. An idea is pursued to validate the market for it, not to accomplish building a scalable, secure solution for which nobody wants.
This is an unfortunate consequence of having a free and openly distributed internet. Unless you're auditing and compiling your own builds from open source, you have no idea where your data is going.
I'm all for best practices and due diligence. But from the startup founder perspective, you can't let yourself be paralyzed by the fear that everything will go horribly wrong.
> But from the startup founder perspective, you can't let yourself be paralyzed by the fear that everything will go horribly wrong.
Some middle ground here is definitely needed.
Even for startups, things going "horribly wrong" can kill people (medical devices, biochemistry, robotics, transportation) or send people to jail (accounting, banking).
And if you think your web startup doesn't deal with "dangerous" things, I suggest googling for "life-threatening grindr security flaw".
I'm not sure if this is genuinely good advice. I've tried to teach a few people how to code and while they've had a great time and also managed to solve a few "homework" tasks which I gave them, I doubt they would have reached a level in only a few months time where they would have been able to build a first version of a product.
Most software needs to do at least some basic data crud, integrating with some third party APIs (auth, some social media platforms, other 3rd party services, etc.) and also do some ops related work to get their first version shipped to some cheap hosting. I doubt that someone without any technical background can learn all these skills in only a few months time and then also build the first version of their product.
It's likely going to be a time sink and one year later they know perhaps some basic programming skill but will have no product at all. To me this would be a sign of bad entrepreneurism, focusing on the wrong stuff at the wrong time. Nowadays you can always hire someone or easily outsource the first version to some company in India or elsewhere. It's not going to be perfect, but much faster than learning and doing it yourself and probably still better.
I also doubt that you have to have some engineering skills in order to be a successful business owner of a software company. Even the most talented developer will not benefit much from his engineering skills, because they will not get the time to make any low level decisions. Surround yourself with people who you can trust and who you can delegate responsibility and you'll be much better off IMHO.
>> Nowadays you can always hire someone or easily outsource the first version to some company in India or elsewhere.
True.
And the process of gathering requirements, managing a software engineer, verifying quality all while working nights and having a full-time job - is somewhat similar to the entrepreneurial life.
"Nowadays you can ... easily outsource the first version".
Fine.
But doing it yourself is not a sign of "bad" entrepreneurism.
Many of my peers outsourced build, sunk a lot of cash/time/energy and went through various teams of developers and still dont have product.
Building yourself means you can continuously and efficiently adapt your product to user feedback, preserve cash and make sound recruitment decisions (through having an in-the-field understanding of skills gaps).
I think the point is just making something and somehow make it work to run the business. The latter is anyway the goal - not a flawless piece of software or a state of art deployment pipeline. This is especially a lot more helpful when money is tight and usually time too. Then hire others to do it the “right way” when it takes off and you have the need and money.
Yeah, just don't run it in production.