11 ms·
Wow... not just 10X programmers, but 100X, and the only evidence seems to be a firm assertion at the start of the book.
by svachalek 9y ago
Wow... not just 10X programmers, but 100X, and the only evidence seems to be a firm assertion at the start of the book.
- shortstuffsushi 9y agoI was coming to the comments in search of what 100x meant -- how it was measured and compared. If someone is 100x more productive, they ought to be able to build systems in days or weeks instead of years, right? Kind of joking, but mostly poking fun at what seem like silly numbers.
- johansch 9y agoI guess the 100x means that they are using LISP? Or maybe the other way around? Not sure. Meanwhile we are told that HN has excellent protection against upvoting rings. How the heck does this reach the front page in an organic way?
- ztjio 9y agoSlow news day, apparently.
- dang 9y agoFrom the data it looks to me like established community members were interested in the topic. Perhaps they didn't look at the article, perhaps they noticed something about it that you didn't, and/or perhaps they're familiar with gnocchi's fine submission history.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vorotato 9y agoHe can make in a year what takes 10 devs 10 years, yeah seems a bit silly.
- dtornabene 9y agoAre you aware of who any of the people are? Do you know anything about them? Seems like that would be relevant to your sneering comment there....
- synicalx 9y agoTo be fair, 100x does sound a little ridiculous. It's like calling someone "Lisp Jesus". I'd go one step further and say this little trend of quantifying how amazing people are by representing them as a multiple of how many plebs they're worth is pretty stupid as well.