[luffapi]

It’s not clearly true at all. Please tell me what was “great” about Viaweb (how pg got where he is today). It was literally about being at the right place at the right time. I think you’d also be hard pressed to find someone who would call Arc great.

> Is it just jealously and pettiness?

It’s neither, it’s people seeing who gets rewarded, how and why.

[dang]

> think you’d also be hard pressed to find someone who would call Arc great.

I would call Arc great! It's one of my favorite things about my job that I get to work in it every day...though not nearly enough every day.

As for Viaweb, are you sure you're not looking at this through hindsight? Those guys were among the first to invent what we now call web apps, years before AJAX. In an era of internet startups coasting on hype, they built a real business - basically what is now called Shopify today. They also did it with a shockingly small team. All that seems pretty great to me.

[luffapi]

I guess I don’t find an online store interesting or innovative. It’s hardly the Apple II or Linux. I also wonder if a sub 100M acquisition would be considered a success by pg himself on a YC company.

Have you ever heard of WebObjects? It was light years ahead of what Viaweb was doing at the time.

[dang]

An online store generator is not an online store. To do that with Lisp macros in 1995 seemed crazily innovative to me when I first read about it in 2001 or so.

[luffapi]

Honestly I’m not trying to be rude, sorry if it came off like that. That’s cool you like Arc, I’m a lisp fan myself (mainly Clojure).

I’m just pointing out that there was a lot of innovation happening at the time and what pg did wasn’t really lasting or that innovative. I don’t have a problem with it, until he espouses what I consider toxic work habits as advice. Too many people listen to him uncritically, it’s not good for our industry.

[eloff]

> Please tell me what was “great” about Viaweb (how pg got where he is today)

He built a product that many people loved enough to pay for. It's harder than it sounds.

> It was literally about being at the right place at the right time.

Entrepreneurial success requires that. If you're in the wrong place or the wrong time, you'll fail.

> It’s neither, it’s people seeing who gets rewarded, how and why.

What do you mean by that?

[luffapi]

Just because something makes money, that doesn’t make it great. MS is a perfect example. Made a ton of money with products and predatory business practices so bad they held back innovation for years until Linux gave people an alternative and created the foundation for the modern internet. That was great tech from the time period.

[AnimalMuppet]

It was great compared to what else was available at the time. Yes, it was about being in the right place at the right time - a place and time where three guys could build something that was better than anything out there, that people actually used.

[luffapi]

> a place and time where three guys could build something that was better than anything out there, that people actually used

This is being in the right place at the right time. In other words, luck.

[AnimalMuppet]

You asked what was great about it. I told you.

Yes, there's an element of "the right place at the right time". And there's working very hard to make the most of it.

Or look at it this way: That opportunity was there for multiple millions of people who could code at the time. It was Viaweb that took advantage of it, though.

[luffapi]

There were not millions of developers back then. According to Wikipedia there were 680k developers in the US in 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demograph...

Regardless, the point is that we should not be listening to a guy who got lucky with mediocre software sold to a mediocre (at best) company in the middle of a bubble about how to duplicate his success.

Remember this is where Yahoo! was at at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com

[eloff]

> Regardless, the point is that we should not be listening to a guy who got lucky with mediocre software sold to a mediocre (at best) company in the middle of a bubble about how to duplicate his success.

You're doing exactly what I was taking about. Downplaying his success. Spinning a narrative that makes it look like he just got lucky. Why?

What have you accomplished with your life? Are you bitter about something? Because if we're really honest here, your opinion of Paul Graham seems to have more to do with you than with him.

[luffapi]

My beef is that a lot of ignorant people are going to cargo cult this nonsense and create a toxic work environment for everyone. I also have an issue with hero worship, I didn’t become a technologist to prop up billionaires.

[kapp_in_life]

Software engineer is a much more common job title now than back then. Back then IT people or developers did a good amount of building & coding, and many would be called software engineers nowadays.

[luffapi]

This number counts developers. I was around back then, the number is accurate.

There was not millions of people writing code in 1996.