nardo

From Paul Graham’s Hackers and Painters

I wanted to summarize this essay to refine my interpretation of its ideas. Reading it was a profoundly inspiring experience, and it brought me a sense of hope I’ve felt slipping away recently. I hope it will serve the same purpose for you too.

Part I. Making Beautiful Software vs. Acting Scientific

Most people think of computer science as anything but artistic. Software developers are often stereotyped as methodological and cold, bound to follow a series of tidy steps to achieve success, while painters and artists are expressionists guided by their gut.

However hackers and painters have many things in common, along with composers, architects and writers… Hackers and painters find their own medium to create/make/compose simply good things. The only difference is that hackers are labeled within the «Computer Science» category, causing us to try to act scientific.

For a long time, I used to think this way. That my work should follow a series of rigorous steps previous to start coding and testing. Leading me to multiple broken ideas, turning my excitement down because I didn’t feel like my method was correct, or the logical steps weren’t fitting neatly into a theoretical framework, or even having the «wrong coding environment» was affecting my output. Many headaches that could kill anyone’s enthusiasm for trying something new.

Instead of succumbing to this frustrating cycle, Paul Graham’s essay suggests a more liberating approach: focus on what genuinely interests you. Forget past conventions and start with originality, refining your work as you go. This stands in contrast to the scientific method, which demands perfection from the very start of any project, leaving originality to emerge later.

«Hackers need to understand the theory of computation about as much as painters need to understand paint chemistry.« – Paul Graham

Part II. Learning from the Masters

Since hackers are not scientist but makers, they should be looking for inspiration and knowledge among other makers.

Throughout history, monumental artistic projects were rarely solo endeavors. Ambitious works often required the collaboration of many artists, united under a shared vision.

A key takeaway from these examples is how the most skilled artist would focus on the centerpiece, while apprentices and collaborators handled peripheral details, like framing or background textures.

This is how great artists are born, by learning from masters. Da Vinci began mastering his talent as an assistant. Leonardo was an apprentice in the workshop of Verrocchio and painted one of the angels in his Baptism of Christ.

I’ve been fortunate to work on projects alongside exceptionally talented people. Recognizing such mentors isn’t difficult—they are often patient, creative, and generous in sharing their knowledge. These individuals elevate not only the project but everyone involved.

Part III. An Obsession with Beauty

Beauty emerges when you approach your work as though crafting a masterpiece.

It’s about immersing yourself in the process—writing thoughtful, clean code, ensuring proper indentation, and finding inspiration in the smallest details.

Far too often, I encounter poorly written code—scripts or systems that “just work,” yet are unintelligible even to their creators. (Unfortunately, I’ve been guilty of this myself).

I often try to lose myself in my work, but real life inevitably intervenes. Emails, timesheets, back-to-back meetings—these obligations pull us out of the creative “zone” and force our minds to function like light switches.

While Graham emphasizes the importance of passion, I would add the need for discipline. Passion fuels creativity, but discipline sustains it.

Part IV. The Day Job

Adam Smith’s invisible hand is a reality, and undeniably prices are determined by supply and demand, and there is not enough demand to things that are interesting or fun to work for us…

«Acting in off-Broadway plays just doesn’t pay as well as wearing a gorilla suit in someone’s booth at a trade show. Writing novels doesn’t pay as well as writing ad copy for garbage disposals. And hacking programming languages doesn’t pay as well as figuring out how to connect some company’s legacy database to their Web server.»

A good answer to this problem is a «Day Job». A concept known among makers which works as fund to your own work. This model often used by musicians, writers, composers, etc… provides with the suffieciancy of having a good enough life allowing everyone to build what they want on their «Night Job»

The possibility to have one kind of job you do for money, and another for love.

Graham also acknowledges the not so fun side of being a maker: the need to make a living. Fame and fortune don’t arrive out of nowhere, allowing us to retreat at 40, and go to a tropical paradise to infinitely create at leisure.

The reality is that most art—and most products—won’t achieve monumental success. The key is to keep creating for the joy of it.

In the meantime, a day job can fund your dreams. Even better if that day job aligns with your creative aspirations. For instance, before photography, many painters earned their livelihood by creating commissioned portraits while pursuing their passion projects in their spare time.

I’m grateful that my current role as a Data Engineer provides this balance. It gives me access to valuable resources and real-world challenges that enhance my personal endeavors. At the same time, my personal projects help me approach client needs with unconventional solutions—a circular win.

Part V. Sketching and debugging 

Good software usually happens by sketching at first, just as painting, and refining this sketch until it is finally perfect. If you could put an xray on different paintings you could notice artist’s mistakes or change of minds over time. 

Same happens to software. The best products happen by continuous discovery, and reshaping our thoughts through thousand iterations. 

Sketching and debugging are the core of masterpieces. 

Part VI. Breaking Free from Limitations

Makers—painters, writers, hackers—are free to pursue what truly captivates them. This freedom allows them to create work that is not only functional but also beautiful, meaningful, and original.

This essay has reminded me of the joy of making, the importance of beauty, and the value of working alongside inspiring people. Above all, it reinforces the idea that creation should stem from genuine interest, not external expectations.

_{Special thanks to the developers close to me that reflect this way of approaching software: Rafa S., Nat C. Rosa M., Marisol S. and special thanks to Alejandro A. who recommended me this essay.}