[bpeters]

Being a biz founder I picked up technical skills and built a crappy (MVP of MVP's) prototype to pitch to tech founders. If the non-tech founder can't even learn enough code to get anything built then I would be concerned for their level of dedication for their own idea.

Even though my prototype was terrible and even made the other founders laugh, they could see my level of dedication and my ability to get something done.

To me being a biz founder we need to be the scapegoat of the startup, no pride all humility and can sell the shit out of anything.

[trustfundbaby]

If the non-tech founder can't even learn enough code to get anything built then I would be concerned for their level of dedication for their own idea.

---------------------

I think thats a little much.

Part of being a good business man is knowing where you weaknesses lie, and knowing how to plug those holes in your game. So why would you waste valuable time trying to pick up a skill that you're probably not interesting in having and will probably not put to use, when you can spend that time raising money to hire a developer or get one to come in with you and handle the development?

[PaulHoule]

There's as much skill involved in managing/leading a software development process as there is in actually doing software development.

I've got a lot of respect for somebody who can scrape up some dough, envision a product, and get somebody to make it. Unfortunately, too many people think that their skills as a salesperson, manager, hairdresser, chemist or whatever empower them to lead a software development effort and too frequently they fail.

[trustfundbaby]

Right, but you can learn enough about the software development process without getting into the nitty gritty of how anonymous functions in Javascript work.

[randall]

I'd argue because it's really not that hard.

Prototyping a product, and implementing said prototype, are hallmarks of people with vision and determination. If you have an idea but can't execute, why bother?

Bare minimum reason: You understand how the product is created, and can empathize / call bullshit when something is delayed.

[trustfundbaby]

You can prototype a product using Axure RP, Powerpoint, Illustrator, Blasamiq or Mocking bird ... you don't have to spend time learning html, css, javascript and or PHP just to do that.

[jtheory]

I think this is where I'd set the requirement, rather than requiring writing code.

If they can make (and talk through) a mockup that demonstrates a grasp of the problems of real-life UI/UX design -- including the little details that normally just get hand-waved over, like "when & where exactly will we get all of the data that's required to build this screen?" -- that counts for quite a lot.

Writing code for someone who doesn't have the background has a huge learning curve -- if someone sets them down with the exact language(s), libraries, editors, references, etc. to use, it's not so bad, but someone who doesn't know the landscape will go down a lot of very time-consuming dead ends on their own, and the lessons they'll learn will very likely not be worth the time wasted (assuming they have no plans to change careers...).

[lolizbak]

Cause we're building startups. Period.

If you were to open a farm in the midwest, would you really hire an IBM sales rep to sell your farm products who never milked a cow before?

[th]

Not quite the same. If a non-technical founder is looking to pitch a website idea to developers and they have they are choosing to spend time picking up HTML and JavaScript or throwing together detailed mocks for each page, the mocks would probably be better use of their time.

[sskates]

He's at the very least set himself apart from other potential non-tech founders and demonstrated that he's willing to be a janitor even though his degree didn't give him any training on how to mop the floor.

[trustfundbaby]

Right ... no argument here, what I take issue with is the idea that if a non-technical guy doesn't start learning how to code to build his idea, it'd be a cause for concern. It simply isn't.

[coolgeek]

You're missing the point - it's about proving dedication. Building a prototype, no matter how crappy, tells potential tech cofounders that you're less likely to bail when you see something shinier.

That said, raising money (or investing your own) would indeed serve the same purpose.

[trustfundbaby]

Actually I think you're missing the point.

What I was responding to was this -----> If the non-tech founder can't even learn enough code to get anything built then I would be concerned for their level of dedication for their own idea

Just because a guy doesn't go to learn how to code doesn't mean you should immediately get worried about their dedication to their project.

I see the point you're trying to make, and I agree with it, but it quite different from what I was addressing.