Too many engineers treat startups like enterprises — over-engineering before they even have users.
I wrote a short piece on why best practices like TDD, strict typing, and heavy CI/CD setups can actually kill momentum in the early days.
Would love to hear where you disagree.
Currently there is quite a lot of noise regarding AI replacing developers, most of which is coming from people who are not technical and think they got super powers with the rise of AI assistants - which in a way is true.
However the point of programmers is not just writing code (some might disagree) but rather problem evaluating and problem solving.
Sometimes the goal of programmer/developer/Software engineer is not to develop a feature that superior has given, but rather to figure out the source of the problem and how to solve it in the most optimal way. Sometimes that means suggesting that nothing is developed, but only processes are altered.
Regarding using AI as assistants and helpers when programming, I agree they can be helpful, but it depends on a problem, person and assistant you are using.
I can speak only for my self, and I can say I hate copilot or other alternative constantly suggesting me lines of code, I find this not only annoying but also very distracting.
On the other hand I really enjoy discussing specific problem with AI, because sometime it can suggests different approach I would have never thought of.
But this cases are really personal preferences.
As it goes for beginners, who are still learning the basic concepts of programming I would highly recommend NOT to use AI, because your foundations will be very poor, and you will struggle to grow as a developer.
There is nothing wrong to ask ChatGPT about an error that you can't resolve your self, but asking him to write you code instead of you is not a good idea for beginner.
I don't see programming careers going anywhere anytime soon, if that is something you would like to hear :D
Most companies, even though they highly depend on open source packages, don't invest a single dime in them.
Why?
Because companies operate by the ROI principle - return on investment.
If they invest in something, they need to see the return in the near or distant future.
The problem with the current state of open source support is that it is not nearly as targeted as it should be.
Currently, companies donate some amount of money to a repository owner and blindly trust that he/she will do the job and continue maintaining that open source package.
This approach is flawed in many ways.
Open source is not just about the creator of the package but rather about the community around it - the contributors.
But the actual community gains nothing from these company donations.
Because of this, I believe that a platform focused on distributing company funds among open source contributors could improve open source quality and consequently enhance their enterprise solutions as well.
The basic concept is that a company dedicates 10k€ (or any other amount) for open source. Developers within that company have the ability to distribute these funds among open source issues they would benefit the most from.
This way, company management does not need to waste time deciding where to allocate the money, and they can actually expect a return on their investment.
With this in mind, I am developing https://openpledge.io, a platform for supporting open source through issue-based donations.
Currently platform is in development and will launch for closed beta in a few weeks.
Any critics and suggestions are more than welcome!
I know I made quite a statement in the title, but in a way, I really believe it.
Having battled with abandoned open source repositories throughout my career, I was desperate for a solution.
The idea that came to my mind was a platform where you could pledge a donation to a specific issue to increase the probability of it being resolved (I understand that this concept also has some drawbacks).
Since my idea solves the problem of unappreciated contributors by rewarding actual contributors, I believe that with a different approach than our predecessors and with the help of the community, we can build a platform that will be beneficial to all.
We plan on launching in June and will be more than happy if you would join our BETA testers list.
Any suggestions, critics or ideas are also more then welcome!
Our research indicates that many repositories could avoid abandonment with more targeted funding, which is why we introduced the issue-based principle. However, we acknowledge that this approach may not be suitable for all issues or open source repositories.
To address this, we're considering giving repository maintainers the ability to manage donations, such as distribution and permissions on specific issues to encourage proper development. The actual execution of these features will be tested during the beta phase, as predicting their usage beforehand is challenging.
Your feedback is valuable, and we welcome constructive criticism and ideas. Thanks once again for your input!
We've put a lot of effort into thinking about potential issues and talking to potential users, but the real test will be when people start using our platform in the beta phase.
We have some ideas to solve problems, and we'll be trying them out gradually as we learn from the beta testers. Your feedback is really helpful, and we're sorry if we don't have all the detailed answers just yet.
Thanks again!
I appreciate your concerns, and we've thoroughly examined BountySource and learned valuable lessons from its challenges.
Our approach involves collaborating with corporations that already leverage open source projects for their enterprise software. By having these companies donate funds to critical issues, we anticipate larger sums being contributed to open source causes than might occur otherwise.
While we recognize that we don't have solutions for every challenge in this space, we firmly believe in the ongoing involvement of open source repository maintainers in our donation process. We are committed to innovation and plan to adapt and improve with the help of the community using our platform. We encourage the community to actively participate in finding solutions for these challenges, as we believe it can lead to a sustainable model that brings significant value in the long run.
Thank you again, and we welcome any additional feedback you may have.
As a startup with a current team of two, we pride ourselves on being highly adaptable and agile. Our goal is to experience rapid growth and redefine how people perceive open source support. By achieving this before GitHub identifies the opportunity and begins development, we aim to cover significant ground, making it less viable for GitHub to launch a similar initiative.
We acknowledge the inherent risks but are determined to be innovative and swift in our approach to ensure success. Additionally, the open-source market is vast and expanding rapidly, further fueling our optimism about the potential for our venture.
You're absolutely right; there are already platforms enabling users to donate to open source projects or various services.
Nevertheless, the concept of donating to specific open source issues and rewarding the person who resolves those issues isn't widely popular on existing platforms. While Bountysource came close, it never quite reached its full potential. We believe that a slightly different approach, with an emphasis on smaller communities initially, can make a significant impact.
We understand the value of having something tangible for the community to try. As a startup actively working on our beta version, we're working hard to gather a group of early adopters to test our initial version and validate the platform functionalities. That's why we're encouraging you to subscribe to our "waitlist."
Your support is crucial to our development process, and we appreciate your patience as we work towards bringing a meaningful and functional platform to the community. Thanks once again!
Hi there! Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. I completely understand your concern about the business model, and it's a valid point. Our key differentiator lies in our focus on issue-based donations rather than contributing to entire projects. This ensures that the funds directly benefit the actual contributors.
As for company donations, we are actively building personal connections with initial donors. We believe that having established collaborations with well-known entities will instill greater trust in the community. This approach aligns with our strategy to showcase tangible partnerships as we grow.
Additionally, we're taking a unique approach to entering the market. Our initial strategy involves concentrating on one technology stack at a time, such as exclusively covering JavaScript. By doing so, we aim to influence and reshape the culture within that specific open source community. After we will have one community covered we will slowly spread to other branches :)
We recognize the inherent risks in this endeavor, as with any ambitious project. However, we are optimistic and fully committed to giving it our best shot. The initial investment serves as a necessary head start to help us lift off smoothly.
Your support means a lot to us, and any encouragement from the community is highly appreciated as we embark on this exciting journey. Thanks again!
Donation is paid to developer that solves the issue/feature request on Github (when pull request is merged).
Amount is paid through Stripe connect which is widely used by marketplace platforms.
The main difference from platforms like Patreon is, that we focus on individual who solves the problem and not the owner of open source project. With this we are encouraging community to contribute to open source and receive rewards(paid donations) in return.
Our long term vision is, that open source projects will be more secure and sustainable.