5 ms·

"For the study, we used data from the PSP class programming assignments for which students record effort, size, and defects for a series of programs." What? W

by jariel 7y ago

"For the study, we used data from the PSP class programming assignments for which students record effort, size, and defects for a series of programs." What? While the data points are nice - I think the author has completely misunderstood the issue here. I don't think in any given group of young devs there's going to be someone '10x better' than the rest, and this was never want '10x' was meant to refer to. Though I don't really believe true 10x-ers exist, I have no doubt that senior, competent, experienced, creative and focused engineers who know how to communicate and collaborate are often worth 10x relative to many of their peers. Particularly in tricky domains, in funky languages that have a lot of room for self immolation, doing non-standard things, a fully competent senior dev who has 'done most of it before' can basically ignore most of the pitfalls, knows most of the little idioms, and can get to solving the problem in a reasonable way, whereas it may take quite a long time for a lesser, junior dev, and may be entirely above the head of others.

hnuser123456 7y ago
I have to disagree. There are people who, outside of any job, discovered programming to be fun at a young age, such as modding games, and if they keep at it, they become at least intermediate-level at a young age. Then there are people who heard coders make good money, studied it in college, and got a job doing it (at a place that doesn't need to pay for, or can't determine, the former type), but wouldn't do it for fun. They know the concepts, but they have a weak link to enjoyment of using them, and only learn what they need as a minimum to make some contribution. They want to like what they do, but it's not easy. The former can easily be 10x more productive than the latter, but they're on such different levels, it's unlikely they'd work side by side so you could compare them. This is ignoring the rare savant who's closer to a 100xer, but I've seen them too.
- watwut 7y ago
  I don't think there is such dichotomy and early youth passion is strongly overrated. Many people who liked modding and similar activities as young are not that great - especially when it comes to difficult tasks. And many people who started to learn it at college or even after are great. The modders and early starters have massive advantages in beginner courses and maybe in intermediate. But many of them don't progress all that much further or hit some kind of ceiling (difficulty to learn algorithms, it becomes boring once not creative) or even actively dislike programming for business (difficulty to deal with changes in requirements and other business annoyances). And I know people who studied something else and then changed to programming - most of them come from physics or math background, two teachers. The original decision was for money, but they did learned fast and made up the difference. Mostly because they were used to learn hard things. Learning something makes you like it in the end and that happened too, but was not the actual reason for anything.
bhk 7y ago
Do you believe that 0.1x developers exist? In a crowd of "0.1x" developers a "1x" developer becomes a 10x developer.
- pauljurczak 7y ago
  0.1x developers definitely exist. One of the ways they can get a job is nepotism. "Free market" efficiencies go only so far.
  - zeroonetwothree 7y ago
    It could be efficient to hire via nepotism. For example to maintain valuable connections, improve your standing in a group, etc. Market != meritocracy
- jariel 7y ago
  -10x developers exist, those that cause more damage than the value they create. For sure.
clarry 7y ago
> I don't think in any given group of young devs there's going to be someone '10x better' than the rest John Carmack was in his early 20s when Wolf3D and Doom happened. Mid 20s for Quake. I have reason to believe he was vastly more productive than most developers his age. I don't think it's unreasonable to think there are other young developers who are similarly much more productive than the average. 10x or not, I do believe in significant differences in productivity.

by jariel 7y ago

hnuser123456 7y ago

I have to disagree. There are people who, outside of any job, discovered programming to be fun at a young age, such as modding games, and if they keep at it, they become at least intermediate-level at a young age. Then there are people who heard coders make good money, studied it in college, and got a job doing it (at a place that doesn't need to pay for, or can't determine, the former type), but wouldn't do it for fun. They know the concepts, but they have a weak link to enjoyment of using them, and only learn what they need as a minimum to make some contribution. They want to like what they do, but it's not easy. The former can easily be 10x more productive than the latter, but they're on such different levels, it's unlikely they'd work side by side so you could compare them. This is ignoring the rare savant who's closer to a 100xer, but I've seen them too.

watwut 7y ago
I don't think there is such dichotomy and early youth passion is strongly overrated. Many people who liked modding and similar activities as young are not that great - especially when it comes to difficult tasks. And many people who started to learn it at college or even after are great. The modders and early starters have massive advantages in beginner courses and maybe in intermediate. But many of them don't progress all that much further or hit some kind of ceiling (difficulty to learn algorithms, it becomes boring once not creative) or even actively dislike programming for business (difficulty to deal with changes in requirements and other business annoyances). And I know people who studied something else and then changed to programming - most of them come from physics or math background, two teachers. The original decision was for money, but they did learned fast and made up the difference. Mostly because they were used to learn hard things. Learning something makes you like it in the end and that happened too, but was not the actual reason for anything.

bhk 7y ago

Do you believe that 0.1x developers exist? In a crowd of "0.1x" developers a "1x" developer becomes a 10x developer.

pauljurczak 7y ago
0.1x developers definitely exist. One of the ways they can get a job is nepotism. "Free market" efficiencies go only so far.
- zeroonetwothree 7y ago
  It could be efficient to hire via nepotism. For example to maintain valuable connections, improve your standing in a group, etc. Market != meritocracy
jariel 7y ago
-10x developers exist, those that cause more damage than the value they create. For sure.

clarry 7y ago

> I don't think in any given group of young devs there's going to be someone '10x better' than the rest John Carmack was in his early 20s when Wolf3D and Doom happened. Mid 20s for Quake. I have reason to believe he was vastly more productive than most developers his age. I don't think it's unreasonable to think there are other young developers who are similarly much more productive than the average. 10x or not, I do believe in significant differences in productivity.