- asimTotally agree! Can't tell if I'm the go-go-go person anymore. So much stress...
- Teach me oh Obi Wan. lol. I never made my bootstrapped efforts work. Neither did my VC funded efforts. Now with the next attempt, I think there's a lot of clarity in what bootstrapping gets you versus VC funding. Also solo vs team. Timelines are so different, the approach is so different. I don't think there is the same urgency in bootstrapping. You can have longer time horizons. With funding its a go-go-go attitude, especially with that finite funding. But even when it goes right and you became public, you are at the mercy of a quarterly report where you have to show something to keep that stock price propped up. I'm sure people running the company will say it doesn't make them think differently but the long termism breaks down a little unless you are pumping cash from somewhere.
Anyway, if I had my shot again, I'm not saying I'd renounce funding. Bootstrapping for a short period to figure things out is great, but funding also creates opportunities where an immediate business model is not clear. Opportunities exist for different approaches. Again not an advocate for the VC funding, but I'd taken even $500k these days to get something up and running as the cost of capital is basically nothing aka YC.
- It's quite interesting because it makes me wonder how we make it efficient and predictable. The human language is just too verbose. There must be some DSL, some more refined way to get to the output we need. I don't know whether it means you actually just need to provide examples or something else. But you know code is very binary, do this do that. LLMs are really just too verbose even in this format right now. That higher layer really needs a language. I mean I get it. It's understanding human language and converting it to code. Very clever. But I think we can do better.
- I don't do any of that. I find with GitHub copilot and Claude sonnet 4.5 if I'm clear enough about the what and where it'll sort things out pretty well, and then there's only reiteration of code styling or reuse of functionality. At that point it has enough context to keep going. The only time I might clear that whole thing is if I'm working on an entirely new feature where the context is too large and it gets stuck in summarising the history. Otherwise it's good. But this in codespaces. I find the Tasks feature much harder. Almost a write-off when trying to do something big. Twice I've had it go off on some strange tangent and build the most absurd thing. You really need to keep your eyes on it.
- Based on the responses it's a lot of people who manage their own email domain or servers. Not the norm. I think most people would not have aliases and things like this but would probably benefit from it.
- Agree with Go being basically C with string support and garbage collection. Which makes it a good language. I think rust feels more like a c++ replacement. Especially syntactically. But each person will say something different. If people can create new languages and there's a need then they will. Not to say it's a good or bad thing but eventually it would be good to level up properly. Maybe AI does that.
- 9 points
- Well I guess part of the problem is I feel like I'm looking at the website with a magnifying glass...
- Well listen, we have two modes of operation. It's either html/js/css in the classic sense, or Go templating with some tailwind and JQuery (or whatever the kids are calling it these days). In the case of react, something totally different. But essentially when you try to go that middle path with something that defines its own syntax, it starts to bleed into everything. It's not self contained. I'd argue maybe tailwind is like that as well, so you want to put it in templates or something. But if your htmx code lives in your actual code the way it does with Go a lot of the times because they promote building these partial functions, it looks horrible, very hard to reason or manage. I'm not talking one or two snippets, I'm talking when you have a full blown web app.
The reality is it's going to suit some people and some languages really well and others not so well. I think I like html/css/js and using AI to generate that. But I also like Go templates and trying to isolate that in a programmatic way. I find htmx in principle, a good idea, but when I actually tried to use it, fundamentally the wrong tool for me.
- Thanks I'll look into it, but on first glance I feel like I just got space blasted by the website! What happened to simple websites eh
- Man I did try htmx, and I was hopeful, right until I saw how it polluted my codebase. I can't say I have the answers, but writing a pure Go app, I'm currently using one giant css file, custom styling and inline html.
And now I'm at the breaking point. So I'm planning to move to tailwind and Go templates, but honestly, i was hopeful for htmx, so I need to properly see the usecase. Which i don't know is this. It reminds me of Angular a lot...
- Yea its a mixed bag. I think some people like https://lobste.rs and there's always https://dev.to. But if that doesn't work there's also infinite sub-reddits on Reddit or classically tailoring your own RSS feed using Feedly or similar. I got to that place where I've curated my source of news but it's by category; Crypto, Dev, Finance, Islam, Politics, Tech, UK, World. I've got a feed for each and it's all grouped in a single UI like this https://mu.xyz/home
- To echo what dang said in the thread. It's a place to hang out and learn about new things. Or sometimes old things. It's news, it's history. All with a tech skew. I've had this account since 2008. In that time I've used it in many different ways, including getting stuff onto the front page. Honestly trying to game it doesn't work. Post something people genuinely find interesting and it will make it to the front page and in the case it doesn't sometimes the mod will see that and think it should get another shot.
- Kept trying to build it in a variety of ways. Ultimately its a Dev niche thing which maybe in the hands of tailscale will gain adoption but really struggled otherwise. There's definitely room for private ephemeral conversations but I think that can also be a more public utility. Who knows, maybe it lays the foundation for that.
- So difficult but look somebody has to try. For us to make any progress we need attempts at this. Package the hardware and software, find a target demographic and go after it. I don't know if there's a mistake in going too broad or not having a tailored OS with a smaller footprint or being the general utility but we only learn through these tests. Good luck Umbrel team!
- Mu - a personal app platform that includes chat with AI, news, video, posts and now mail. Solving a personal problem with ads, algorithms, tracking.
Tech is too addictive now. We need to get back to utility value. I'm trying to build an alternative with myself as user 1.
- Yes, personally I think this idea that our identities are defined by careers, job titles or being a founder is inherently very dangerous. So when it all falls apart, who are you? It is very dangerous. We need to stop evangelising this way of thinking and try to be more holistic about it. Life before startups, tech, etc was not defined like this. Yes people's last names were effectively the work they did, but the whole of your identity was not wrapped up in something that could disappear in an instant. Or something we have effectively infatuated as a real necessity. The reason so many of us fail is because we're building things nobody needs. Maybe that's harsh but I have to ask myself, if I didn't build go-micro.dev, would something else have existed to replace it, yes, wholeheartedly yes. My contribution to software is not that significant. If Google didn't exist, would something else exist, Yes, it would.
We have to look at the world differently. OK there's Elon with his effed up childhood and maniacal need to "save humanity" but when you really get down to it, he falters at the simplest questions about life. This man doesn't know what's real and what's not. Let's be clear, those we follow are just human and often what gets them to where they are, while its hard work, if it wasn't them, it would be someone else and those people would be just potentially in the right place, at the right time, and sacrificing things that maybe we shouldn't sacrifice. Life went on long before tech and it will continue long after tech.
- Sometimes we need a reset. I think after some time away you start to gain clarity and then you understand what went wrong or what didn't work. And then if you want to decide to do it again, you can with a better perspective, but you can equally find more value, the same value elsewhere. Some people find contributing to a shared mission elsewhere also works. I hope you figure things out.
- I never thought I would fail. For 7+ years I think that's what drove me. Then things changed. Life changed. They attribute it to burnout and often that is the case, but you have to also factor in life and motivation changes. If the success doesn't come soon enough, you start looking towards other things, other aspects of life, if I may even say, more rewarding and real parts of life. Startups are a microcosm of what life is about, but we get hung up on the outcomes, our identities become intertwined with the mythology of the founder. It's important to break free of some of these notions and this retelling of the narrative even for failed founders in the way of "it's burnout", "lack of product market fit". Life goes on. We should look at these more as experiences to learn from, phases of life and then many go towards the next thing, and that's OK. To any failed startup founder here, it's okay, move on with life, try again, just keep going.