3 ms·
Author nails it though with: "We should be far more concerned with keeping 0.1x programmers off our teams than finding the mythical 10x programmer."
by hatch_q 5y ago
Author nails it though with: "We should be far more concerned with keeping 0.1x programmers off our teams than finding the mythical 10x programmer."
- readams 5y agoThis is just rescaling. The author is actually acknowledging that there exists 10x differences but divides by 10 for some reason.
- The_Colonel 5y ago1x is supposed to be a baseline for an average productive programmer. 0.1 is someone who isn't actually a productive engineer but somehow faked the interview process. It's not difficult to be 10 times more productive than somebody who isn't productive at all. I'm at least 100x better Kotlin developer than my 30 years dead grand-grand father who never saw computer IRL. It's much more difficult to show that you can be 10 times more productive than the average productive developer.
- gary_0 5y agoThe author's point is that more effort should be spent removing negative outliers instead of hunting for elusive positive outliers.
- gary_0 5y agoI agree, because the effort required to filter out a 0.1x programmer is vastly smaller than trying to find a 10x outlier. Way more bang for the buck.
- jdougan 5y agoNo, you need to watch out for the -1x programmers. At least the 0.1x are moving forward,