3 ms·
Thank you for that link, but it goes to prove the point. The article mentions that in debugging time, the difference is 25:1. In terms of hours, that is a bug
by brg 17y ago
Thank you for that link, but it goes to prove the point.
The article mentions that in debugging time, the difference is 25:1. In terms of hours, that is a bug getting identified in one hour versus 3 working days. The difference is staggering. Consider the difference in coding time from the article, 5:1. The higher end of the curve completes in one quarter what it takes an average programmer over a year. In terms of development lifecycle, a project will be cut due to reorganized priorities before a group of average programmers even begin to think about a beta while a group of the strongest will have been working on version 4.
Looking for a 1000:1, 100:1, etc is a meaningless standard. If you meet a man twice your size, wouldn't that difference seem staggering? But it is only 2:1.
- codexon 17y ago1000:1 is a meaningful standard. There is a point where it becomes unbelievable to say someone is 1000 times better than the top 100,000 people out of however many billion are on the planet right now. A look at any competitive sport or Olympics will show that top athletes are winning by a razor's edge in the milliseconds. Would you believe it if someone claimed to be a million times better at a certain skill than the top people in the world? The magnitude of difference definitely matters, and let's not delude ourselves into inflating these ratios higher than they actually are.