4 ms·

Agreed. I've never encountered someone that I think is genuinely a 10x programmer. I've worked with a few people that thought I was one, which I'm most certai

Agreed. I've never encountered someone that I think is genuinely a 10x programmer. I've worked with a few people that thought I was one, which I'm most certainly not, and I've explained that to them. I've encountered a lot of what I would call .2x programmers though. As you've said, there are a lot of people that are really bad at the job. It's not a slight either - there are a lot of people doing this job that really don't care for it at all. It's hard to be good at a job you don't enjoy. Especially if life forces you to do it 40+ hours per week.

eteos 7y ago
If youve encountered a lot of 0.2x, then the 2x developer is the 10x developer you are looking for!
tekkk 7y ago
I myself have noticed that some people just have natural cognitive abilities that far surpass any regular person's abilities, and I guess that's generally a prerequisite for making any new ground-breaking discoveries or libraries. But still, one person can only know/do as much as one person can, and while having very great skills in some narrow domain, other people (or here programmers) might be better versed in other skills than this "10x" person. Thus the 10x depends very much on the task. What I have come to appreciate more over the years is the ability to communicate and make understandable code that other people can build upon. I think it's our greatest strength to lean on the collective ability of the group instead of depending on some person's individual skill. And in the end the "10x" is merely a subjective measure, that very much depends upon the people you are comparing to. With a team of 10x programmers wouldn't everyone be then only 1x?
saagarjha 7y ago
> I've never encountered someone that I think is genuinely a 10x programmer. I have. (Interestingly, some of these people knew this and had a surprising lack of modesty about it as well…) Usually I think it boils down to being able to have the experience to consistently guess right on things, come up with new ideas, and not get tangled in the weeds: most of them are smart, but not so smart that you’re just lost when talking to them.
- m0zg 7y ago
  >> not so smart that you’re just lost when talking to them That, BTW, is a sure sign that someone is trying to appear smarter than they really are. Having worked at 2 research labs over the course of my career I know more than my fair share of genius-level people. Without fail, they are humble about it, and can explain complex concepts in a way the rest of us can understand. This is something that just blows my mind pretty consistently actually, and IMO it is a sign of true, deep understanding of a complex subject. The person didn't just memorize formulas (although many of them excel at that as well), they understand why things are the way they are, the real meaning behind it all. It could be that this is selection bias though, and I only got to know geniuses who aren't also assholes.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    > a sure sign that someone is trying to Nope. Explaining things well is a skill. One can be non-excellent at it. Its possible to have a moderately-good grasp of something that you can use while working with it, but not yet have come up with good ways to make your knowledge explicit in a well-organized fashion.
    - learnstats2 7y ago
      Moderately-good is not genius. Part of being great at something includes an ability to abstract out common difficulties, which helps other people to understand (even when you are not that great at explaining). I'm not aware that I've ever met a genius who was working on completely different principles to other people - everyone reaches the same difficulties and has to find a way to resolve those.
      - afarrell 7y ago
        > Moderately-good is not genius. Agreed. But moderately-good is also not "a sure sign that someone is trying to appear smarter than they are". > everyone reaches the same difficulties That is definitely false. I've had difficulties with social skills, the writing process, and knowing how to direct my attention. Some of these are so alien to other people that when I ask questions, it is not uncommon to get responses like: * Just do the obvious thing. * This isn't hard. * What do you think {repetition of my question}? * You're overthinking things. * What the fuck is wrong with you? The folks I've heard get discouraged from maths or science tell similar stories. Part of being good at the skill of explanation is asking questions which help you understand the other person's perspective and what their difficulties are.
rubber_duck 7y ago
The only guy I would describe as a "10x" wasn't exceptionally technical or a genius - I saw him as above average, but I've worked with guys that I thought were more exceptional in those regards. But this guy had the ability to focus on the most mundane things with unbelievable attention and focus - I would probably need to take amphetamines or something to come close to this level. Combined with the experience he had with this project he was by far the most productive person on the team (and the team had competent developers on it). And it was not a case of a mad genius locking people in to his asylum project - this project was screwed over by that type of developer years before he joined the team.
pjc50 7y ago
I've certainly worked with them - someone who wrote an entire h265 decoder test suite in three months, for example. My own experience had included times of being the 10x debugger, especially when called into situations that have already consumed a large amount of colleagues time.
hnick 7y ago
> .2x programmers Why stop there, throw a negative coefficient on it. Some bad programmers actively cost other people's productivity and drain profit when their poor decisions or implementations need to be fixed (or they constantly ask the same questions and never seem to grow past that stage).

eteos 7y ago

If youve encountered a lot of 0.2x, then the 2x developer is the 10x developer you are looking for!

tekkk 7y ago

I myself have noticed that some people just have natural cognitive abilities that far surpass any regular person's abilities, and I guess that's generally a prerequisite for making any new ground-breaking discoveries or libraries. But still, one person can only know/do as much as one person can, and while having very great skills in some narrow domain, other people (or here programmers) might be better versed in other skills than this "10x" person. Thus the 10x depends very much on the task. What I have come to appreciate more over the years is the ability to communicate and make understandable code that other people can build upon. I think it's our greatest strength to lean on the collective ability of the group instead of depending on some person's individual skill. And in the end the "10x" is merely a subjective measure, that very much depends upon the people you are comparing to. With a team of 10x programmers wouldn't everyone be then only 1x?

saagarjha 7y ago

> I've never encountered someone that I think is genuinely a 10x programmer. I have. (Interestingly, some of these people knew this and had a surprising lack of modesty about it as well…) Usually I think it boils down to being able to have the experience to consistently guess right on things, come up with new ideas, and not get tangled in the weeds: most of them are smart, but not so smart that you’re just lost when talking to them.

m0zg 7y ago
>> not so smart that you’re just lost when talking to them That, BTW, is a sure sign that someone is trying to appear smarter than they really are. Having worked at 2 research labs over the course of my career I know more than my fair share of genius-level people. Without fail, they are humble about it, and can explain complex concepts in a way the rest of us can understand. This is something that just blows my mind pretty consistently actually, and IMO it is a sign of true, deep understanding of a complex subject. The person didn't just memorize formulas (although many of them excel at that as well), they understand why things are the way they are, the real meaning behind it all. It could be that this is selection bias though, and I only got to know geniuses who aren't also assholes.
- afarrell 7y ago
  > a sure sign that someone is trying to Nope. Explaining things well is a skill. One can be non-excellent at it. Its possible to have a moderately-good grasp of something that you can use while working with it, but not yet have come up with good ways to make your knowledge explicit in a well-organized fashion.
  - learnstats2 7y ago
    Moderately-good is not genius. Part of being great at something includes an ability to abstract out common difficulties, which helps other people to understand (even when you are not that great at explaining). I'm not aware that I've ever met a genius who was working on completely different principles to other people - everyone reaches the same difficulties and has to find a way to resolve those.
    - afarrell 7y ago
      > Moderately-good is not genius. Agreed. But moderately-good is also not "a sure sign that someone is trying to appear smarter than they are". > everyone reaches the same difficulties That is definitely false. I've had difficulties with social skills, the writing process, and knowing how to direct my attention. Some of these are so alien to other people that when I ask questions, it is not uncommon to get responses like: * Just do the obvious thing. * This isn't hard. * What do you think {repetition of my question}? * You're overthinking things. * What the fuck is wrong with you? The folks I've heard get discouraged from maths or science tell similar stories. Part of being good at the skill of explanation is asking questions which help you understand the other person's perspective and what their difficulties are.

rubber_duck 7y ago

The only guy I would describe as a "10x" wasn't exceptionally technical or a genius - I saw him as above average, but I've worked with guys that I thought were more exceptional in those regards. But this guy had the ability to focus on the most mundane things with unbelievable attention and focus - I would probably need to take amphetamines or something to come close to this level. Combined with the experience he had with this project he was by far the most productive person on the team (and the team had competent developers on it). And it was not a case of a mad genius locking people in to his asylum project - this project was screwed over by that type of developer years before he joined the team.

pjc50 7y ago

I've certainly worked with them - someone who wrote an entire h265 decoder test suite in three months, for example. My own experience had included times of being the 10x debugger, especially when called into situations that have already consumed a large amount of colleagues time.

hnick 7y ago

> .2x programmers Why stop there, throw a negative coefficient on it. Some bad programmers actively cost other people's productivity and drain profit when their poor decisions or implementations need to be fixed (or they constantly ask the same questions and never seem to grow past that stage).