4 ms·

It's obviously about being able to abstract computational processes and programming constructions, as done by Developers who are Hired to build software. And y

It's obviously about being able to abstract computational processes and programming constructions, as done by Developers who are Hired to build software. And yes, I've dealt with real people on all ends of this spectrum, and there's stark common denominators in their respective successes and failures. That's not to say this article is any good, but the skill of abstraction is still paramount to software development.

GuiA 9y ago
Sure, but phrasing it as “abstract/can’t abstract” seems reductionist and arbitrary. By and large, the overwhelming majority of humans will bring you a cup or bottle of water if you ask them for “water”, rather than bringing you water in their cupped hands. Clearly all these humans can abstract. If this conversation is to be meaningful in any way, it’d be helpful to use well defined, measurable properties (“can count to 10 without using their fingers”) rather than fuzzy things like “they can’t abstract” which is clearly plainly false. Otherwise, these conversations merely devolve in “10x programmers are real and I only hire 10x programmers!” vs “anyone can be a 10x programmer given the right environment” and it just doesn’t go anywhere.
- white-flame 9y ago
  Again, you're projecting things nonsensically into non-programming fields. There are plenty of wannabe programmers out there who simply like computers or like the idea of money in the field, who regardless of age cannot muster the required abstract thinking as applied to programming to be a developer that can put out minimum-acceptable-quality code. Regarding your last sentence, that's why I've been careful to call it a "skill", because it can be exercised, apprenticed, and gleaned. But for some people it just never gels. This isn't the distinction between "10x programmer" and "regular programmer", it's the distinction of "has programmer skills" and "does not have programmer skills". And as much as the pointy-haired inclined hate it, software development heavily involves creativity and bespoke research, for which there's no reasonable objective skill measure besides simply doing the work.

GuiA 9y ago

Sure, but phrasing it as “abstract/can’t abstract” seems reductionist and arbitrary. By and large, the overwhelming majority of humans will bring you a cup or bottle of water if you ask them for “water”, rather than bringing you water in their cupped hands. Clearly all these humans can abstract. If this conversation is to be meaningful in any way, it’d be helpful to use well defined, measurable properties (“can count to 10 without using their fingers”) rather than fuzzy things like “they can’t abstract” which is clearly plainly false. Otherwise, these conversations merely devolve in “10x programmers are real and I only hire 10x programmers!” vs “anyone can be a 10x programmer given the right environment” and it just doesn’t go anywhere.

white-flame 9y ago
Again, you're projecting things nonsensically into non-programming fields. There are plenty of wannabe programmers out there who simply like computers or like the idea of money in the field, who regardless of age cannot muster the required abstract thinking as applied to programming to be a developer that can put out minimum-acceptable-quality code. Regarding your last sentence, that's why I've been careful to call it a "skill", because it can be exercised, apprenticed, and gleaned. But for some people it just never gels. This isn't the distinction between "10x programmer" and "regular programmer", it's the distinction of "has programmer skills" and "does not have programmer skills". And as much as the pointy-haired inclined hate it, software development heavily involves creativity and bespoke research, for which there's no reasonable objective skill measure besides simply doing the work.