4 ms·
The 100x Engineer
- minimaxir 9y agoIs the author implying that he himself is a "100x Engineer"?
- zef_hemel 9y agoIs he?
- AlexCoventry 9y agoNo, he's just outlining some desiderata for effective organizational behavior for engineers.
- naugtur 9y agoYou might have to read the article to know that ;)
- oktobercrisis 9y agoI couldn't take the article seriously due to the absolute idiocy of the term '100x Engineer.'
- jitl 9y agoWorth reading. This is not some sort of claim of “wow I am Jeff Dean the 100x engineer”. Rather it is a discussion of the myths of 10x engineers, and how to actually think about contributing productivity at a high level.
- btschaegg 9y agoAs a Sidenote: Microsoft Applications: “[...] and 0.5 defect per KLOC [...] in released product (Moore 1992).” It might just be me, but I somehow have the feeling that hasn't been true for a loooong time. Edit: Also, I somehow have the feeling that the quote about defects per KLOC isn't really helping. From what I see regularly, the business side of things is almost never interested in the "0 defects per .5 MLOC" of the last part, especially if you're considering what the implications must be for the amount of time it takes to produce that level of quality (even more so if you assume some form of waterfall development, as it's attributed to 1990). I really like what the author is saying after that (because he focuses on much more important factors) but that only makes this specific quote seem more misplaced to me.