
I recently opened my GitHub account and filtered by private repositories. I actually counted them:...
I recently opened my GitHub account and filtered by private repositories. I actually counted them: exactly 27 abandoned side projects created over the last 3 years.
There was a machine-learning habit tracker. There was a Twitter clone for dogs. There was a complex SaaS boilerplate that I spent four weeks configuring before completely giving up on it. Some of them I spent weeks on. One I even bought a domain for.
Hundreds of hours wasted. Why did they all die before seeing the light of day? It was not a lack of time. It was not a lack of motivation.
Here is the controversial truth:
Most developers do not fail because of a lack of skill. They fail because they secretly enjoy the dopamine rush of starting a new project more than the grind of finishing it.
Here is the exact pattern that killed my 27 projects, and the rule that finally helped me break the cycle.
As developers, we love shiny new tools. When starting a project, the first instinct is to try that new database everyone is talking about on Twitter, or the latest beta version of a framework.
I once spent an entire weekend configuring a Next.js app with tRPC, Prisma, and a custom Tailwind design system. By Sunday night, my infrastructure was absolute perfection. But I had zero business logic written. The next day, I lost interest completely.
If you want to actually finish a project, you have to use boring technology. Pick the stack you know best, even if it feels outdated.
For the dog Twitter clone, I spent three days setting up a complex Redis caching layer. I was terrified the server would crash if a million dogs signed up on day one.
We love to over-engineer. We worry about how our database will handle massive traffic, so we design complex microservices. But here is the brutal reality:
Your biggest threat is not the server crashing. Your biggest threat is that nobody will ever visit your site.
Stop building for problems you do not have yet. A simple database query is fine. You can always optimize later when the app actually gets traction.
It starts innocently. You are building a simple to-do list, and you think, "It would be cool if users could upload a custom profile picture." Suddenly, you are reading AWS S3 documentation for five hours instead of finishing the core task logic.
Features are fun to dream about, but they are heavy to build. Every extra button you add delays the launch. The best way to finish a project is to ruthlessly cut features until you have the absolute minimum viable product. If it does not solve the core problem, it gets deleted.
Writing code is safe. Your VS Code editor does not judge you. But launching a project means real people might see it, find bugs, or worse—ignore it completely.
A lot of side projects are abandoned right at the 90 percent mark because the developer is secretly afraid of hitting the deploy button. We hide behind the excuse of "it just needs a little more polish."
A buggy, ugly app that is live on the internet is infinitely more valuable than a perfect app sitting on localhost.
To break this curse, I made a strict new rule for myself: I have to launch a working, ugly prototype within 48 hours.
If it takes longer than a single weekend to get the core feature live, the scope is too big. This simple mindset shift is one of the biggest reasons I finally started shipping real apps instead of building graveyards.
I know I am not the only one with a GitHub graveyard of dead ideas.
Be honest: What is the weirdest abandoned side project you have ever started, and what was the real reason you stopped working on it?
Let me know in the comments. What is in your graveyard?
aiMost of us have seen a coding agent fail to complete a task we know it can do. We just don't...
googlecloudWhen building Generative AI applications, developers often encounter a massive bottleneck: sequential...
discussI’ve been thinking about sharing some electronic circuit posts on Dev.to — small circuits, DIY...
agentsWhat nobody tells you about exporting your multi-agent prototype to a local workspace. Every...
agenticarchitectAutonomous agents are genuinely good at answering messy business questions. Give one an LLM and a set...
aiPR volume went up, ticket quality didn't, and the gap got filled with LLMs on both sides of the review: bots reviewing, bots replying, bots occasionally arguing with bots about priorities that only existed in a teammate's head. Our CEO named the actual problem, and it's bigger than code review.
Workflows from the Neura Market marketplace related to this Stable Diffusion resource