3 ms·
10x is a really bad term, it tries to quantify a difference without a baseline. The difference isn't in quantity, but imo rather in mentality. Relentlessly aut
by Aperocky 5y ago
10x is a really bad term, it tries to quantify a difference without a baseline.
The difference isn't in quantity, but imo rather in mentality. Relentlessly automating repeatable tasks can net 100x or 2x or 0.5x depending on context, but something that don't happen often enough.
- ratww 5y ago> 10x is a really bad term, it tries to quantify a difference without a baseline. I believe this is incorrect. The baseline (or 1x) is the lowest-performing member of the team. At least that's how I learned the term.
- sokoloff 5y agoThe lowest performing member of your team could be negative. Or they could be twice as good as the lowest performing person on some other team, or they could be above the industry average, meaning a 10x programmer becomes a 5x or 20x when the team changes. I’ve always internalized as a “typical, competent programmer” rather than team-specific anything (Peopleware’s definition notwithstanding).
- astrange 5y ago10x implies there should be an opposite of a 10x, but it's unclear if that'd be a negative number or a 0.1x.
- imron 5y ago> but it's unclear if that'd be a negative number or a 0.1x A negative number. A 0.1x programmer gets work done acceptably but is slow. A negative programmer on the other hand creates more work for other people to fix, and you’d be better off not having them touch the code at all.