I thought the same thing. Maybe because it's the only definition that makes sense. If you measure everyone against the department Wally (the lazy guy from Dilbe

I thought the same thing. Maybe because it's the only definition that makes sense. If you measure everyone against the department Wally (the lazy guy from Dilbert), you'll probably find plenty of 10x programmers. Not that it would mean anything. Also, sample size would matter. Assume that there really is a Superwally out there who has worked in programming for seven years for some company without accomplishing anything at all. And I imagine that there is. It would matter a lot if he is part of the sample. In fact, the only sample that would make sense would be all programmers in the world, and now, thanks to Superwally, we all look pretty good. And of course, there is probably some Hyperwally as well who can smugly boast seven years of negative productivity. Deleting random stuff, breaking functionality, leaving messy code for others to untangle. Adding Hyperwally to the equation and the relative productivity of everyone else would approach singularity levels.