Why Most Side Projects Never Make It Past Version 1 (And How to Actually Finish Yours)

The repo exists. The idea was good. Something still went wrong.

It's 11 PM on a Tuesday and you just had an idea so good you can't sleep. Maybe it's an app that tracks your gym progress better than anything on the App Store. Maybe it's that tool that fixes the one annoying thing at your job nobody else seems bothered by. You open your laptop and start typing like your life depends on it. By 2 AM you've got a repo, a README with way too many emojis, and a folder structure that's honestly more organized than half the production code at your job.

Three weeks later that repo is just sitting there. README still says "Coming Soon." Last commit message says "wip" and you can't even remember what you were in the middle of fixing. Looking back, you're not even sure when you stopped opening the folder. It just sort of happened.

I don't think I've met a developer who doesn't have at least one repo like this. So let's dig into why it keeps happening, because once you see the pattern, it gets easier to break.

The Shortcuts That Seemed Fine at the Time

When you're building fast and excited, you cut corners. You hardcode a value instead of making it configurable. You skip the validation check because you'll fix it later. You copy-paste the same function into three files instead of just refactoring it.

None of that feels like a big deal in the moment. But shortcuts compound. Half the time you don't even notice it's happening until changing one line suddenly breaks three unrelated things. By week three, that "quick fix" from day one has quietly spawned four more that all depend on it somehow. Debugging eats more time than building ever did.

Mine was a config value I'd copied into four different files. Every time I changed one, I'd forget the other three. By the time I caught it, the inconsistency had quietly caused a bug I spent two hours blaming on something completely unrelated.

I once spent an entire weekend adding authentication before realizing I still hadn't built the feature I actually wanted people to use. The stuff that eventually saved me was surprisingly boring: environment variables from the start, reusable functions, ten extra minutes cleaning something up before moving on.

The Feature Creep Problem

This one's sneaky because it disguises itself as productivity.

You start with something simple. A to-do list app, clean, basic, done in a weekend. Then it needs reminders. Then sharing. Then dark mode. Then AI-powered suggestions, because why not. Then somehow there's a social feed.

And now your weekend project needs six more weeks, and you haven't finished the basic to-do list part yet. Worse, you've lost that satisfying feeling of completing something, because the finish line keeps moving.

Feature creep happens because coming up with new ideas is genuinely fun. It feels like progress even when it isn't. The problem is you end up building width instead of depth, and the thing never reaches a point where you can actually call it done. You're always one feature away from shipping, and that one feature keeps multiplying.

What worked better for me was just writing the ideas down instead of immediately building them. Keep a file called future-ideas.md and dump everything in there as it comes. It gets the idea out of your head so it stops nagging at you, and it keeps whatever you're currently building actually focused. Sounds too simple to work. It does though.

Build the Smallest Useful Thing First

The first time I forced myself to stop after building just the core feature, I actually finished a project. That's when MVP thinking started making sense to me.

MVP just means the smallest version of your idea that still solves the core problem for someone. Not the version that looks impressive in a screenshot. The version that actually works. For a to-do list: add a task, mark it done, delete it. That's it. No reminders, no sharing, no dark mode.

You're not cutting quality, you're cutting scope. Build the core properly, get it out there, then let actual usage tell you what to build next. The annoying part is that most of your guesses about what users want are wrong anyway, and you only find that out by shipping early instead of guessing in isolation for two months.

A good gut-check before adding anything new: if you removed this feature, would the app still solve the original problem? If yes, it probably doesn't belong in v1.

A Quick Note on Infrastructure

Part of why side projects stall is that so much time goes into things that aren't even the actual idea. Setting up auth, configuring a database, figuring out hosting. By the time all that's wired up, you're already burnt out before building a single feature anyone would care about.

I ended up using AWS Amplify on one project mostly out of laziness, not because I was trying to do things the right way. I really didn't want to spend another Saturday wiring up auth and deployment again. It hooks into your Git repo so pushing to main kicks off a deployment without you babysitting a server. For a project you're only touching on weekends, that's the difference between two hours of actual building and two hours of config files.

Honestly, you don't need Amplify for this. Plenty of good projects get built with nothing but raw code and stubbornness. But if the infrastructure part is mostly handled, you can spend your limited time on the part that actually matters.

Just Ship the Thing

Version 1 doesn't have to be impressive. It just has to solve one real problem well enough that someone other than you finds it useful. Ship it sooner than feels comfortable. Fix what's broken. Add one thing at a time. That's how most products end up growing anyway.

So next time you get that 11 PM spark of inspiration, don't try to build the perfect version. Build the smallest version that actually works and push it live. Worst case, nobody uses it and you've lost a weekend. Best case, you actually finish something for once.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

    When You Know How to Code But Have No Idea What to Build There's a specific kind of frustration that hits developers at some point in their journey. You've done the tutorials. You've built the to-do app, the weather app, maybe even a Netflix clone. You've watched the YouTube videos, starred the GitHub repos, and sat through enough "Top 10 Project Ideas" content to last a lifetime. Technically, you can build things. But you sit down in front of a blank screen and ask yourself  what to build, and suddenly nothing. This is idea blockage. And almost nobody talks about it. The Perfect Idea Trap Most developers carry around this quiet belief: that before you start building, you need a real idea. A good one. Something that feels worthy of the time you're about to put in. We look at Notion, Figma, Airbnb and we assume those products were born from a single brilliant insight. A lightbulb moment. The right idea at the right time. But that's not usually how...
Read more
  Failure Is a Better Architect Than Success The most reliable systems you have ever used were not designed that way. Someone got paged at 2am, spent three hours confused, and then added the metric that should have existed from the start. I used to think reliability was mostly a design problem. If you thought carefully enough upfront, modeled the failure cases, wrote good tests, the system would hold. That belief survived until the first time I watched a queue silently back up for six hours because a Lambda function was retrying on a 429 and nobody had a metric on retry count. The monitoring dashboard showed everything green. The system was on fire. That gap, between what your dashboard shows and what is actually happening, is exactly the problem observability exists to close. Monitoring and Observability Are Not the Same Thing Monitoring tells you something is wrong. Observability tells you why, including why in ways you did not think to instrument for. A monito...
Read more
  The Myth of Building for Scale Too Early I once watched a friend spend three weeks setting up a Kubernetes cluster for an app that had exactly zero users. Not "small user base." Zero. He was proud of it too, showed me the architecture diagram like it was a tattoo he'd been planning for years. Meanwhile the actual product, the thing people were supposed to use, didn't exist yet. This happens more than anyone in tech wants to admit. At some point, building for scale became proof that you're a "serious engineer." Like if your architecture isn't complicated enough, people won't take it seriously. But from what I've seen, chasing millions-of-users infrastructure before you've convinced even ten people to use your thing is a special kind of self-sabotage. The annoying part is it looks like productivity the whole time. What Scaling Actually Means When people say "scaling," they're talking about handling more user...
Read more