> 10-fold difference between the best programmers and the worst. He cites this as evidence and still goes on to talk as if the observed 10x-ers were 10x averag

> 10-fold difference between the best programmers and the worst. He cites this as evidence and still goes on to talk as if the observed 10x-ers were 10x average. Then he tries moving the goalpost, with talk of high-level project decisions and code not written. Just come out and say, "A true 10x programmer does X, Y, and Z. A true 10x programmer would never do A, B, and C." Sounds more like a certain fallacy involving Scotsman when phrased that way. The only saving grace is that he backs off and recommends against a hiring strategy targeted solely at ninja rock-star devs, but then he reinforces the boogeyman of negative programmers I get that some people are good. There's nothing outlandish about Peopleware's cited figure of 2.5x average programmers, but that's not so incredible that the 1x devs need be weeded out. There must also be a handful of developers with IQs of 160 walking around, but there's too much demand for talent to act as if such rarities are the baseline of who's employable. None of this is worth continuing to blog about.