4 ms·

Well, I just googled the peopleware citation and it seems the study backing this often repeated claim is from the 1960s and people have plenty of questions abou

Well, I just googled the peopleware citation and it seems the study backing this often repeated claim is from the 1960s and people have plenty of questions about its methodology. I'll easily buy 2X or 3X productivity difference. I'm not buying these casually tossed off claims about 10X or 30X productivity differences without the supporting research discussed in detail front and center. Unacknowledged differences of that magnitude would imply a massive arbitrage opportunity that has persisted for many years. And that's just not realistic.

btilly 17y ago
I don't know what you found through Google, but it was a bad description of the research cited in Peopleware. For a start the research they discuss was done in the 1980s, not the 1960s, and the methodology of their study was quite carefully done. Read http://javatroopers.com/Peopleware.html#Chapter_8 http://javatroopers.com/Peopleware.html#Chapter_8 for a much better overview of what Peopleware actually says. Of more interest than the productivity differences measured is the discussion of what factors were part of those productivity differences. Once you've read that, you may find the result much more believable. (There is a lot of detail in the book that is left out of the summary, but that's in the nature of what summaries are.)
damienkatz 17y ago
If you view computer programmers as mental ditch diggers, then the idea that one could be so much more productive than another seems crazy. But when you see it as a creative endeavor, it's completely rational that some could be orders of magnitude more productive, even infinitely so. For example, when you have a hard problem (like a networked 3d game with physics) that is beyond the abilities of a developer A (he can't solve the problems at hand, no matter how much time given), but not developer B (a creative thinker who can solve the problems quickly), then I think you can literally say Dev B is infinitely better than dev A for those hard problems. Because it's going to take you infinitely many developers A's randomly poking at their keyboard to solve the problems. But dev B will solve them in a reason amount of time. Now dev B isn't infinitely smarter, but for certain tasks, he's infinitely more productive. The point is the productivity differences are highly context dependent, and the greater the creative and cognitive load of the tasks, the the greater the measurable productivity differences between the highest and the average developers.
- SapphireSun 17y ago
  Slight nitpick: Infinite developer As will not solve the problem unless you assume that each developer can solve a finite part of the problem. If Developer A simply can't solve the problem none of them will help.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  But this reasoning applies if: 1) Knowledge is entirely linear. If there some tasks programmer A fails at and some tasks programmer B fails at, then all you have is an apples-to-oranges comparison (which is what a lot of the x10 chest-pounding comes down to). 2) Knowledge isn't shared in the group. My proudest moments have involved actually teaching my co-workers how to write a recursive descent parser, why ACID matters in databases or how to divide a multi-threaded application between worker and consumer threads. It might be true that if I'd just kept my knowledge to my self and laughed as they failed, I might have been a 10x or even a 100x programmer. But it was more pleasant and satisfying to be the guy who actually helped everyone.
sshumaker 17y ago
I've experienced a 10x difference firsthand - and not against bad coders, but against average ones (they were former game developers, so they're quite possibly above average vs. the rest of the software industry). And you can slice the productivity along a bunch of different axes - systems designed and built, loc (not a great metric), complexity, features, etc - and the metrics still hold up. That said, this order of magnitude is pretty rare (and it was against the slowest of the programmers) - but if you have a few true superstars, you can expect at least a 4x difference against the average in a group. As far as compensation goes, at my last internet startup there was approximately a 5x difference, once you factor in bonuses. In the games industry, it was more like 2.5x. For the worst coders, we tended to fire them after a few weeks if they somehow made it past the interview process. So there was a well-correlated difference in compensation there - we either paid them a few weeks of salary or 0$ in the latter case. :)
camccann 17y ago
Unacknowledged differences of that magnitude would imply a massive arbitrage opportunity that has persisted for many years. Only if "programmer productivity" is a primary limiting factor and one can reliably distinguish relative productivity beforehand, both of which strike me as unlikely in most situations.

btilly 17y ago

I don't know what you found through Google, but it was a bad description of the research cited in Peopleware. For a start the research they discuss was done in the 1980s, not the 1960s, and the methodology of their study was quite carefully done. Read http://javatroopers.com/Peopleware.html#Chapter_8 http://javatroopers.com/Peopleware.html#Chapter_8 for a much better overview of what Peopleware actually says. Of more interest than the productivity differences measured is the discussion of what factors were part of those productivity differences. Once you've read that, you may find the result much more believable. (There is a lot of detail in the book that is left out of the summary, but that's in the nature of what summaries are.)

damienkatz 17y ago

If you view computer programmers as mental ditch diggers, then the idea that one could be so much more productive than another seems crazy. But when you see it as a creative endeavor, it's completely rational that some could be orders of magnitude more productive, even infinitely so. For example, when you have a hard problem (like a networked 3d game with physics) that is beyond the abilities of a developer A (he can't solve the problems at hand, no matter how much time given), but not developer B (a creative thinker who can solve the problems quickly), then I think you can literally say Dev B is infinitely better than dev A for those hard problems. Because it's going to take you infinitely many developers A's randomly poking at their keyboard to solve the problems. But dev B will solve them in a reason amount of time. Now dev B isn't infinitely smarter, but for certain tasks, he's infinitely more productive. The point is the productivity differences are highly context dependent, and the greater the creative and cognitive load of the tasks, the the greater the measurable productivity differences between the highest and the average developers.

SapphireSun 17y ago
Slight nitpick: Infinite developer As will not solve the problem unless you assume that each developer can solve a finite part of the problem. If Developer A simply can't solve the problem none of them will help.
joe_the_user 17y ago
But this reasoning applies if: 1) Knowledge is entirely linear. If there some tasks programmer A fails at and some tasks programmer B fails at, then all you have is an apples-to-oranges comparison (which is what a lot of the x10 chest-pounding comes down to). 2) Knowledge isn't shared in the group. My proudest moments have involved actually teaching my co-workers how to write a recursive descent parser, why ACID matters in databases or how to divide a multi-threaded application between worker and consumer threads. It might be true that if I'd just kept my knowledge to my self and laughed as they failed, I might have been a 10x or even a 100x programmer. But it was more pleasant and satisfying to be the guy who actually helped everyone.

sshumaker 17y ago

I've experienced a 10x difference firsthand - and not against bad coders, but against average ones (they were former game developers, so they're quite possibly above average vs. the rest of the software industry). And you can slice the productivity along a bunch of different axes - systems designed and built, loc (not a great metric), complexity, features, etc - and the metrics still hold up. That said, this order of magnitude is pretty rare (and it was against the slowest of the programmers) - but if you have a few true superstars, you can expect at least a 4x difference against the average in a group. As far as compensation goes, at my last internet startup there was approximately a 5x difference, once you factor in bonuses. In the games industry, it was more like 2.5x. For the worst coders, we tended to fire them after a few weeks if they somehow made it past the interview process. So there was a well-correlated difference in compensation there - we either paid them a few weeks of salary or 0$ in the latter case. :)

camccann 17y ago

Unacknowledged differences of that magnitude would imply a massive arbitrage opportunity that has persisted for many years. Only if "programmer productivity" is a primary limiting factor and one can reliably distinguish relative productivity beforehand, both of which strike me as unlikely in most situations.