Monthly Archives: April 2014

Startup Autoeroticism

joystick

I was reading a great book the other day about publishing. It was recommended by a friend. In the book, the guy recommended a certain tool. Cool! I go over and purchase the tool.

But wait, there’s more! It’s not just the tool. You can buy three different versions of the tool. Once you purchase, there’s an add-on templating pack — do I want the basic templates, the advanced ones, or the lifetime subscription? Remember, this is my business. Do I really want to risk all of that because I didn’t get the right templates?

I know what’s going on. I realize that the moment I make a purchase decision I’m at my weakest — I am primed and ready to buy most anything. After I decided on the lifetime pack of templates, which I probably do not need, I was pitched several other products — some through some nicely-placed prop web pages (I would consider a product, google it, then land on an extended funnel that consisted of a recommendation followed by a link back to the sales page). Within 5 minutes, no matter what I did to investigate the concept the tool vendor was trying to promote, I was back on his long-form sales page looking at a set of courses for 300 bucks.

Not useful.

Look guys. I know the long-form 300 bucks sales thing. Half of you guys are teaching me long form sales, and then you’re sending me over to your buddies who are trying to sell me with it.

This may come as a news flash, but even with 100 testimonials, there are some products I do not need. It’s also highly-likely that the more sales magic you put on your product, the more people you are separating from their cash who cannot afford it. Your product that is going to triple my conversion rate/sign-up rate/site traffic/penis size is probably not that useful unless I’m already delivering quality content. Clicking a few times and providing a Visa number does not make a business.

But damn, I want to believe it does. I want to believe I can buy a brand-new shiny 47-button joystick and pilot my startup like an F-16 shooting vertically off the end of the runway in Flight Simulator X. Just show me where to click.

I’ve noticed a habit in startup circles. The internet seems a fickle place, and its not unusual for a friend to come up with an idea and use it to rocket to success. They’ll have an app, or an idea for teaching, hit the right leverage spot in regards to publicity, and suddenly they’re in gravy.

For a while.

But then the numbers drop. Attrition starts taking its toll. The old methods of priming the pump don’t work. The cool kids don’t do things that way any more. And, like good startup folks, they go out and talk to their audience to find out what they want. Make the lightning strike again.

And this is where it gets interesting. Because the more my friends engage with the community, the more they look for common things people want that they can provide, they always end up somewhere on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Who doesn’t want food? Shelter? Money? And so on. It’s perfect! They’ve found the ideal niche!

So over time, each year around the world you get several hundred folks hitting the big time with DinoWidget 2.0, then the next year they’re giving out classes for using DinoWidget to self-actualize, or make more money. A year or two after that they’re doing high-pressure sales about some primitive need that we all have. Repeat that for ten years, and you’ve got an internet full of folks looking to separate you from your money. Each person may be acting in what they consider to be a moral and upstanding way, but in the aggregate? It’s a cesspool.

Just to be clear, I do not feel that most of these folks are trying to trick me in any way. But their idea of an honest description of a product and the actual impact it has on startup founders are two different things. This, also, is a natural thing. In their mind I’m the struggling business guy who just needs this one push that they can provide to hit it. This is their fantasy. We all have them.

The problem is, as a single-founder, it’s tough out there. I have limited resources and time. Most of the important stuff, like finding a product-market fit or building relationships with key thought leaders, ain’t happening with a tool. But any kind of marketing and sales system does something very subtle: it tells you a story about how awesome you are going to be once you make this purchase.

We are all very eager to buy into a narrative about ourselves where we overcome some of life’s really tough problems by making simple (and heroic) choices. Testimonials, which everybody and their brother uses today, tell us a story about folks just like us who were just where we are right now, and by making a simple yet brave choice to change their life and spend a few bucks, the clouds opened up and it was all broad sunlit uplands.

We love this. We love putting ourselves in the place of others and living their lives and making choices vicariously. Dreaming about how we could solve big problems. It’s a natural human channel for instruction and manipulation. Hell, it’s the basis of all fiction. But we can easily confuse stimulation — the absorbing of outside useful ideas — with self-stimulation — living in a world where we can solve tough problems with PayPal purchases.

Startup founders are in a particularly weak and vulnerable position. A story about making a purchase and having lots of extra income? They can buy into this. Very easily. Hell, most of the time to be a good founder you have to have an unrealistic expectation of your chances anyway. Having some long form sales page give you a hundred reasons why you’re going to make a couple decisions today and nail your sales figures is something you’re all too-willing to believe. This narrative speaks to you — and it’s a dangerous story to believe.

I don’t want to leave this on a negative note, so here are the rules I’m applying to my economic decisions:

  • I don’t buy things where the process is initiated by others. If it’s an ad or a tweet, I’m simply observing.
  • I research things people tell me about in person to see if they might be useful.
  • I never buy from a long-form sales page. The entire thing is manipulative. I might click there if that’s the only place, but I don’t consume content and don’t linger
  • As an early-stage founder, I’m concentrating on conversations with people, not metrics, not flash, not systems, nothing else. If it helps me have conversations, I’m liking it.
  • I am starting to discount advice given to me about how to build a startup by anybody who also sells tools to help startups. It’s not that the advice isn’t good. Heck, it’s probably the best advice around. It’s that I can’t trust the speaker to help me make the cold economic decisions necessary. I also think it’s very easy for these folks to get into a mindset of “when you’re a hammer, the world is a nail”

The startup community is eating itself. Great folks start out with awesome products, pivot a few times, then end up pitching other startup guys stuff. Why? Which audience do they know best? Startup folks, of course! It’s not a terrible thing, but it can have very evil effects. You can lose your shirt and not have a damn thing to show for it if you’re not very careful.

Be careful.

Share
If you've read this far and you're interested in Agile, you should take my No-frills Agile Tune-up Email Course, and follow me on Twitter.

Microconf Takeaways

Rob Walling and Mike Taber at the kickoff of microconf 2014

Rob Walling and Mike Taber at the kickoff of microconf 2014

Just had a great time in Vegas with some other small startup guys talking about how to create something that has real value for people — how to help folks in the world. As a side-effect, the goal is to work from home, spending lots of time with your family. It’s no get-rich-quick scheme: everybody has to find their own path. But there are a lot of common things too. Most of us use the internet, most of us either used to program or program now, most of us are part of something called the Micropreneur Academy, and most us, well, are nerds.

Here are the three things I learned (or re-learned) about myself this year:

I don’t know enough about the customer. Yes, I know the job of people I’m helping. Yes, I know the subject area I’m trying to teach. But while I have general and in-depth knowledge, that ain’t cutting it. I need to climb inside my customer’s head, spend time with them doing their work from their point of view, not mine. I keep wanting to jump ahead to the business-building part of things, instead of product-market fit. If I get the right product-market fit, the market will “pull” the rest of the business from me. People will be clamoring at the door demanding that I take their money. If I don’t? Then I’m building something and trying to beat people over the head with it. Don’t do that, Daniel. It hurts.

Hey, I actually know this stuff. Since I’m trying to help people create, maintain, and optimize their to-do lists (backlogs), it would help if I knew what I was talking about. The more I interacted with fellow startup guys, the more I realized that I actually could help these folks too. I’m actually on to something very useful across a broad market. In fact, because book 3 is going to be on backlogs and startups, I can start “eating my own dogfood” and use the things I know in the work I’m doing. It sounds like I am an idiot for not knowing/doing this already, I know. But a lot of times there’s really obvious stuff right in front of you that you miss because you’re in the weeds. Jesse Mecham gave a great talk yesterday about this. He was running a profitable startup for years and still afraid to quit his day job because of his desire for security. It took going to a minister for somebody to convince him he had the answer all along.

Teach more to make more friends. This is one of those things that I understand intellectually, but I don’t think I really get it. Plus, as somebody who took years to learn a few things, I’m seeing these guys become experts in stuff that took a month or two, and then overgeneralizing what they know and saying things that aren’t necessarily true. This makes it tougher on the next guy who comes along who tries to take the reader to the next level. But I understand that taking somebody on a journey of learning with you is good for both of you. I need to keep banging this against my head until it sinks in.

My three action items:

Start talking to people on the phone. Once they sign up for the email course, ask them if they have a few minutes to chat. Get to know why people are interested in learning more about helping Agile teams. There’s no agenda: I’m not trying to sell or push products. Simply trying to gain as much loosely-formatted and unstructured data as possible that I can then go back and find themes and put some structure around.

Use my backlog principles to organize my own startup work. Hey, if the goal here is to complete a series of books that wraps up value creation from customer development to 20,000-person enterprises, time to put the stuff in book 3 to the test personally, instead of just reading about it and watching it. The startup part is probably part of the series I’m weakest on, so nothing like the present to fix that. Not only does this make sense, it’s only an hour or two of work, maybe every month or two. No biggie. (Which is one of the beauties of getting this out to folks, it should take a tough thing and make it much easier)

Revamp my email strategy. Right now I have an Agile Tune-Up email series that runs every week over a period of a year. The purpose is to get to know folks, start a conversation, let them know who I am and that I know some stuff that could help them. That’s about it. I really should 1) offer a free multi-part course or something else of value in return for folks joining the list, 2) re-vamp my weekly series so it’s more useful to the readers, 3) manually test out the emails that go out before I automate the process so that the formatting, message, and timing is exactly what I want, and 4) add in a bit of data around segmentation when people join the list so I can help them better. Are they coaches? Guys working at a big corporation? A startup? I need to create a trial scoring system and hook that into the people I interact with. Powerful idea from Brennan Dunn yesterday. Looking forward to implementing it.

As soon I finish creating the 17 clones I will need to do all of this.

But wait! There’s more! I have a couple of strategic bonus problems that need to be solved right away.

Videos or books? I’m halfway through Backlogs 2, and I only have an early version of the first of eight videos completed for the Backlogs 1 series. Looks like completing either of those two projects should take a solid 3 months. I can’t do both — or rather if it’s possible I don’t understand how. So what to do? Finish the video series so that folks can have the hard-nosed, detailed, deep-dive down on personal and team backlogs after they finish the first book? Or go ahead and continue the story with Smith and the plant, giving people more entertainment — perhaps even finishing the final book — then swinging back for the videos? Maybe neither? Maybe I just stop now and go start marketing the hell out of the book I’ve already completed. Beats me, and I’m the one supposed to be figuring this stuff out.

All-in-all, it was a great conference. Lots to think about, great folks, and some terrific tactical advice that I didn’t even get into here. Good stuff.

Share
If you've read this far and you're interested in Agile, you should take my No-frills Agile Tune-up Email Course, and follow me on Twitter.

F#, Mono, Agile, Architecture, DevOps

Several people have asked online lately, “Can you really write production code in F# and mono?”, “How are you doing architecture now that you’ve switched completely to F#”, and “Aren’t you doing some kind of weird thing now that doesn’t work with interactive websites?”

I usually don’t do coding blogs, because, frankly, after a while it all gets pretty boring. Same old bytes, just new bells and whistles on top. But my approach to architecture has changed in a major way over the last five years. Might as well document it.

Description of Problem Domain. For our sample project, let’s take Newspaper23. It’s a production system with a small number of users that’s been running for a few years and has evolved through my change in philosophy.

Newspaper 23 exists for one reason: I have a very short attention span. Websites are always trying to get me to hang around, click on related stories, sign-up for things, and so on. I find this very distracting. It’s very easy for me to spend a lot of time online that’s unproductive. So a few years ago I had an idea: since the news I consume is all from a dozen or two sites, why don’t I just harvest the titles and links from those sites and put them in a big list? Then I’m choosing what content to consume based on the site brand and the title of the article, not social cues or any other nonsense.

So I got out my credit card, went over to Amazon AWS, and fired up the site.

The Old, Old Way of doing things. The first time through, I did this in a “classic” manner. I sketched out a domain model, I elaborated a bit on a database model, I built a database model in MySQL, and I created a new C# app in Visual Studio and wrote a program to do everything that was needed — get some links, save the data about them, create a page with the links, do some “other stuff”.

The problem was, I was never really clear what the program should do. Should I collect the votes the article had from reddit? Don’t know, so I’ll throw that in there and save it. Might need it later. Should I provide the ability to comment, or vote? Don’t know. I’ll add space — after all, space is cheap — and if I need it, it’s there. Should there be some kind of authentication? Beats me. (Decided to skip that one)

Don’t get me wrong; none of this was a heavyweight or Big Design Up Front process. I’m only talking about an hour or two of doodling around with things. And the beauty of modern tools is that it really doesn’t matter whether your table has 5 fields or 10. Unless you’re writing the code to do something with the data, it’s just “out there”.

It did make the “link sucking” process a little more complicated, because with different sites I had to get different pieces of data. Fair enough.

What happened. After a couple of weeks of off-and-on coding, I got the program up and running, along with a unique system for identifying data on a web page to harvest. (It was a recursive RegEx language. Please, no “but you can’t use Regex on html!” It looked good.) The code base consisted of a data tier, some controller logic on top, and it seemed to work fine.

For a while.

But over a period of just a few days or weeks, it seemed like there were always these weird edge cases, both in the sites, and more disturbingly, in the tool version, setup, and configuration. Site X would change their format, and I’d be in the code changing the way I received links. Yes, I had hard-coded in the parameters for each site, but how difficult was it to change some hard-coded values once or twice a year? Except the more source code there was, and the more I touched the code, the more errors I got. And it seemed like for one reason or the other with this way of programming there was a boatload of code to wade through and I was always horsing around with it. [insert discussion here about TDD]

By using a MVC paradigm, I had written one piece of software that I could easily lay a bunch of different controllers down on. In fact, as we all know, I could develop a “controller library” over time that would take the data and do all sorts of wondrous and amazing things. That’s the beauty of a good model — it facilitates many different solutions.

I still think this might be the way to go, assuming 1) you use good testing practices, and 2) you’re going to constantly be under the hood in the code for a long time. But it introduced all kinds of problems related to having everything pass through one executable and code base. Did I really want to horse around with the code that grabbed links, for instance, simply because I was fixing the code that wrote the web page? Why was I putting all of my eggs in one basket? OOP is a great way of doing things, but it introduces a freaking huge amount of hidden interdependencies. Some times I wonder if 90% of the problems development teams have with programming is based on the fact that in the developer’s mind there is separation of model and controller, but that in the wiring itself, things can be all hooked together in completely insane ways, usually for what seemed like good reasons at the time. The black box of OOP has a lot of very sharp edges.

The Old Way of doing things. The first thing I did was ditch C#. It’s a great language, a better Java than Java, but it was the wrong paradigm for me. The second thing I did was start to build the app from the ground-up. Programming functionally required me to write functions that did things. This sounds blazingly obvious, but it’s actually a much different way of looking at things from creating a model and adding controllers on top. I still used the MySQL datastore — had to put stuff somewhere — but my code was a LOT smaller.

It also needed much less tweaking. Remember: this is personal programming. Instead of sitting on top of a model that could do many things and having to choose what to implement, which might cover calls all over the place, my code did a few things, and there was a clear path to the data for the things it did.

What happened. There was still that problem with everything running through one spot. If I wanted to tweak anything, anywhere, I’m opening up the entire codebase to make a change.

Interestingly, since this was revision 2, the code ran for much longer without needing tweaking. This meant that when I did get around to tweaking it, I had forgotten the build setup! So I’d have a 2-line change that would require screwing around with re-remembering the build-deploy environment. That might take several hours. Plus the sites were still hard-coded. The output was hard-coded. As much as I loved data-driven programming, why was everything so coupled?

Along this time I built HN Books, a social book site for hackers. It was all static. I found I could do a lot with static web pages and JSON files. Much more than most web programmers would believe.

Hmm. Fuctional programming. Static pages. Hmmm.

The way I do things now.

So now I have a new philosophy:

  • Third time through, I decided I write small programs. As small as I can. Instead of one big honking system, my system has four programs: GetLinks, UpdateArticleLibrary, CreateSelectedArticleList, and FormatSelectedArticleList. There’s a bonus utility, CheckXPath, which lets me check out XPath strings against websites to make sure they work (in case the site layout changes). I use as few external libraries, tools, or frameworks as possible. Over the years, I’ve found that every tool I picked up had 40 tons of features, of which I only needed 3. That meant that whenever I needed to do something simple that I had never done before, I had to wade through all sorts of forums, hearing about all sorts of arcane switches and other stuff. Screw that. I do not need to buy and operate a nuclear attack sub to go fishing from the pier. So — no Visual Studio, no MySQL, no complex dependencies at all. (Having said that, I actually dumped my custom link-sucking system and went with HtmlAgilityPack. I mean heck, once it’s installed, it’s just XPath. Time spent learning XPath is not as completely sunk as time spent learning WhizBang 7). Simplify.

  • My files read and write data on the local storage. I’m not doing transactions, therefore I don’t need a transactional datastore. It’s functional coding. Things come in, things go out. The O/S already has a wonderful tool for storing things. It’s called a file system, and unless I’m going to be moving around tens of thousands of these things, it’ll work just fine, thank you. Simplify.

  • I use the O/S to schedule when the programs run and to move things around. Instead of having one program that runs once a day, split the work up into a “pipeline” and have the O/S manage the pipeline. It’s already good at managing processes — it has all kinds of tools for it. Use them. Simplify.

  • I don’t “interact”. I process things at certain times. In the old days, I’d have an instance of my program spun up in Apache, waiting around in fastCGI for a client to come and connect. Then the program would do all sorts of things depending on which client it was, what the request was, and so on.

    After many, many years of coding like this, I had to ask myself: why? Why the hell am I doing it this way? 9 times out of ten I’m delivering the same content. 9 times out of ten the client is just reading stuff. 9 times out of 10 I’m creating database connections, cursors, and all sorts of other cruft — just to send the same stuff back down the wire as I sent 2 seconds ago. For the huge majority of the use cases I can imagine, even for interactive sites, there’s no difference at all to the user between a program that sits waiting for connections and a series of programs that updates data every few seconds. This is stupid. Don’t do this any more. Decouple. Simplify.


  • I write simple queries to monitor how things are moving through the pipeline. Quite frankly, the system is running so well I don’t need to monitor it, but if I did, I’d simply monitor how things flow through the pipeline. I could even make a nice html page with graphs. Don’t need to, but it’s an easy option. In fact, I’d argue that the only things interesting to me as a owner/maintainer would be things visible at a system level, not a programming level. Huge win here: no programming skill required to look at CLR innards, just O/S skills. Simplify.

  • Nothing exists as hard-coded data. It’s all either config files or command-line parameters. Right now as I bring up the page, I can see that Hacker News isn’t returning any data. If I wanted, I could probably figure out what the problem was and fix it (assuming it was fixable on my end) in about 10 minutes. No programming required. All I need is a shell. I AM re-coding the system, kinda. I decided that since I have 10-15 functions that are the same across each executable, it would make sense to create one Visual Studio solution and share a couple of library source files. Welcome back to the days of shared C header files! I’m also making the logging more robust. Right now I log everything. (I don’t read the logs, but they are there.) This is using up too much disc space. Every few months I have to clean it out. So a more fine-tuned logging system would be nice. Maybe. Maybe not. Simplify.

  • TDD? TDD? We don’t need no stinking TDD. With purely functional programming, there are only 3 mistakes I can make: Failure to break down transforms into understandable atomic units, failure to describe the transform correctly, and failure to validate the data. If I do all three of those correctly? There’s nothing to test. It’s like trying to test an SQL select statement. The idea doesn’t make sense. Simplify.

It’s very nice. Here’s the main function for the first program in the chain, GetLinks, that gets links from sites (duh):

Code Snippet
  1. [<EntryPoint>]
  2. let main argv =
  3.     try
  4.         let opts = parseCommandLineArgs (Array.toList argv)
  5.         if opts.verbose >= Verbosity.Normal then
  6.             printfn "Options Selected:"
  7.             printfn "%A" opts
  8.             printfn ""
  9.         let config = getConfigData opts
  10.         let outputDataHolder = {
  11.             outputSections = new System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string, outputSection>()}
  12.         let outputData = ripLinks opts config outputDataHolder
  13.         printfn "Processing Complete for %A" opts.siteUrl
  14.         let numberOfDataPointsMatchMessage =
  15.             if outputData.outputSections.Count>0
  16.             then
  17.                 let max = outputData.outputSections |> Seq.maxBy(fun x->x.Value.outputList.Count)
  18.                 let maxCount = max.Value.outputList.Count
  19.                 let min = outputData.outputSections |> Seq.minBy(fun x->x.Value.outputList.Count)
  20.                 let minCount = min.Value.outputList.Count
  21.                 if maxCount = minCount
  22.                 then
  23.                       maxCount.ToString() + " links with " + (outputData.outputSections.Count-1).ToString() + " pieces of additional information about each link gathered."
  24.                 else "Number of links, titles, and other Data DOES NOT MATCH.\r\n" + max.Key + "  has " + maxCount.ToString() + "entries while " + min.Key + " has " + minCount.ToString() + ".\r\nCheck your configuration file or run this program with the verbose option set /V"
  25.             else
  26.                 "\r\n\r\nTHERE WERE NO SECTIONS OUTPUT.\r\nPlease check your configuration file.\r\nTry running this program with the /V option"
  27.         System.Console.WriteLine(numberOfDataPointsMatchMessage)
  28.         0 // return an integer exit code
  29.     with
  30.         | :? UserNeedsHelp as hex ->
  31.             System.Console.WriteLine("You'd like help")
  32.             System.Console.WriteLine("Good luck with that")
  33.             System.Console.WriteLine("/V for verbose output")
  34.             System.Console.WriteLine("/S:<url> to set the target site url")
  35.             System.Console.WriteLine("/C:<filename> to set the config file used. Config file is expected to have Windows line returns \r\n")
  36.             System.Console.WriteLine("/O:<filename> to set the output file created/overwritten")
  37.             System.Console.WriteLine("/N:<integer> number of links desired")
  38.             System.Console.WriteLine("")
  39.             0


This is 50 lines of code. But it’s really only 4, lines 204-207. It gets the configs passed in. It creates a new container to hold the output data, it processes the link, and then it saves the data (which happens in the ripLink function. Should be down in this one. Ugh.) The rest of it is logging and help system stuff.

I could show you ripLinks, but it’s the same deal: 50 lines of code which are really about 10. It gets the links from the page using the “ripLinksOnAPage” function (clever naming, eh?), then it processes the links according to the config file.

Let’s look at how it breaks up.

wtf-blog-getLinks-fd

As you can see, there are really only 5 functions, ripLinks, http, loadHtml, recBuildLinksUp, writeLinksOut, and ripLinksOnAPage. The rest is either library calls or a few small helper functions. Take out the logging and some of the other broilerplate, and there’s maybe 50 lines of “real code” here.

We’ve done something simple, easily describable, and concrete. We took stuff from the file system, read a webpage, wrote stuff to the file system. Logged as we went along. That’s it. No need to solve world hunger. It has value.

This code has been running for more than a year with no modifications. I expect it to continue running forever. I’m done. Isn’t that nice?

Common objections.

It’s re-inventing the wheel. In most cases, I don’t need a wheel. I need a lug nut. Yes, I know what the wheel looks like, but the cognitive load of buying a big stack of wheels and carrying them around when I just need a couple of lug nuts? Tell you what. If I start thinking about round things to fit on cars, I’ll get a wheel. Otherwise I’m fine.

It’ll never scale. The funny part about this objection is the opposite is true: the more complex your stack, the more difficult and nuanced it is to scale. I can take this app and scale it out as far as I like. Heck, copy it to a CDN. We’re done. And for those of you thinking interactivity, think long and hard whether you need immediate feedback for the user or just something that changes every few seconds or once a minute. You could be spending a huge number of processor cycles worrying about concurrent clients when you really don’t need it.

It’s poorly-thought-out. My datastore? Line-delimited text files. Code complexity? Nothing more than a few hundred lines of code. Is there anything it can’t do? Not really. But (and this would be the objection I would have made several years ago) what if you want it to do something that required the data to change? Wouldn’t you have to re-jigger every piece of code in the pipeline?

Not really. First, because I’m using name-value pairs, I can always add data and not use it. So really, what would happen if I wanted some cool new feature would be 1) I’d change the data representation where it was created, 2) I’d add the code to store it, and 3) I’d add the code to use it. If you’ve worked in a functional environment, this is the way you make changes anyway. Nothing new here.

It’s not as cool as X. Probably not.

The deployment process is brittle. Actually, although I’m not continuously deploying what I write — there’s no need to automate it when it’s just me — I’m integrating DevOps directly into the solution. There’s no one part of this solution that’s “programming” and another part that’s “deployment”. It’s all integrated together. Instead of good coupling and cohesion at the function level, I have good coupling and cohesion at both the function and the executable level. Very cool stuff.

Continuing to add features. The very next thing I’m going to do is add/adjust the logging. Having to clean out the logs once every 3 or 4 months is a chore. Next up in my quest to eliminate distractions, I’ll probably go to the target site and rip the plain text and store it here. I’ve thought about adding voting and commenting, but it’s a personal site.

None of this will require a major change or a re-think of how the architecture works. Mostly the system just works and I don’t have to mess with it. O/S updates handle updating security and scaling problems. I worked a bit to make the solution, and now the solution works for me. And isn’t that the entire idea?

Share
If you've read this far and you're interested in Agile, you should take my No-frills Agile Tune-up Email Course, and follow me on Twitter.