4 ms·
"There are so many horrible programmers that you can be mediocre and be 10x more productive than the guy next to you. Thus you think you're in the 10x crew. But
by walkon 17y ago
"There are so many horrible programmers that you can be mediocre and be 10x more productive than the guy next to you. Thus you think you're in the 10x crew. But you really aren't. It's not because you're really that good. It's because the guy next to you is really that bad."
So someone who is 10x more productive then their coworker isn't actually 10x more productive because their coworker is so horrible? Isn't "10x more productive" an explicit measure of productivity relative to the guy(s) next to you?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- scott_s 17y agoHe meant in the class of 10x better than the average programmer, which would include all developers in the world, not just the few you can see.
- joe_the_user 17y agoWhy would the developers you couldn't see be 10x better than the developers you can see? Could there be a dark matter halo of great programmers lurking around the world's mediocre-programmer-filled corporate cubicals?
- scott_s 17y agoI meant "the developers you can see" to imply the people around you. That's a small sample size, and not representative of the entire world.
- joe_the_user 17y agoA small sample size would just imply greater deviation. There's no reason to assume the programmers outside your sample would be x10 better than those in your sample.
- rdouble 17y agoYes, this is what I meant. I don't know why you got voted down.
- joe_the_user 17y agoYes, the gp's argument seems to contradict itself.