3 ms·

I agree there are probably no 10x devs. This person took 7 days to (almost) complete this task (which they cherry picked for their self), suggesting the average

I agree there are probably no 10x devs. This person took 7 days to (almost) complete this task (which they cherry picked for their self), suggesting the average 1x dev with experience in this domain would take 70 days. I think it would be more reasonable to call someone a 3 -sigma dev (someone 3 standard deviations above the mean. These would exist because that's how stats work)

rcxdude 4y ago
It's worth pointing out that in the origin of the "10x developer" term, it's relative to the worst performing devs, not the average. Also, you're not guaranteed to have an example 3 standard deviations above the mean. It strongly depends on your distribution and sample size.
- subroutine 4y ago
  I think the prevailing current definition is wrt. the average dev. The worst dev could be arbitrarily bad (suggesting the average dev could also be 10x). You're right about the sufficient sample size.
ZephyrBlu 4y ago
I've always read 10x as an order of magnitude better, not necessarily 10x faster. 3 sigma is probably better terminology though.
- subroutine 4y ago
  Isn't, say, 10 days an order of magnitude faster (better) than 100 days?
  - ComputerGuru 4y ago
    It’s just one example of being 10x better but hardly the only one or the most realistic.
    - subroutine 4y ago
      But probably the least subjective, and yeah, my position is that 10x is unrealistic.
      - ComputerGuru 4y ago
        It may be the least subjective but it’s also the least technically/physically probable even if someone were a 10x developer. The gambit is that a mediocre programmer would take 10x as long to write the same code as the hypothetical 10x dev. But that’s not what a mediocre or even average dev does: they solve the problem in an entirely different (and, for purposes of this argument, less optimal) manner in some spam of time that may or may not be longer than a qualified hacker or a theoretical 10x dev. Almost all CS problems have multiple solutions, so you’re not likely to find one where there is only one solution and it takes one guy x and the other guy 10x as long.
        subroutine 4y ago
        Fair. I get your point. My only contention is of the magnitude - imo someone 10 times better than the average developer is a unicorn. But the term gets thrown around any time someone is 'just' really good; they wrote fairly optimal code, quickly. However, to your point, there may be an argument to be made that people who have made a huge impact on the CS landscape are 10x-ers (regardless of efficiency). Is Linus a 10x-er?

rcxdude 4y ago

It's worth pointing out that in the origin of the "10x developer" term, it's relative to the worst performing devs, not the average. Also, you're not guaranteed to have an example 3 standard deviations above the mean. It strongly depends on your distribution and sample size.

subroutine 4y ago
I think the prevailing current definition is wrt. the average dev. The worst dev could be arbitrarily bad (suggesting the average dev could also be 10x). You're right about the sufficient sample size.

ZephyrBlu 4y ago

I've always read 10x as an order of magnitude better, not necessarily 10x faster. 3 sigma is probably better terminology though.

subroutine 4y ago
Isn't, say, 10 days an order of magnitude faster (better) than 100 days?
- ComputerGuru 4y ago
  It’s just one example of being 10x better but hardly the only one or the most realistic.
  - subroutine 4y ago
    But probably the least subjective, and yeah, my position is that 10x is unrealistic.
    - ComputerGuru 4y ago
      It may be the least subjective but it’s also the least technically/physically probable even if someone were a 10x developer. The gambit is that a mediocre programmer would take 10x as long to write the same code as the hypothetical 10x dev. But that’s not what a mediocre or even average dev does: they solve the problem in an entirely different (and, for purposes of this argument, less optimal) manner in some spam of time that may or may not be longer than a qualified hacker or a theoretical 10x dev. Almost all CS problems have multiple solutions, so you’re not likely to find one where there is only one solution and it takes one guy x and the other guy 10x as long.
      - subroutine 4y ago
        Fair. I get your point. My only contention is of the magnitude - imo someone 10 times better than the average developer is a unicorn. But the term gets thrown around any time someone is 'just' really good; they wrote fairly optimal code, quickly. However, to your point, there may be an argument to be made that people who have made a huge impact on the CS landscape are 10x-ers (regardless of efficiency). Is Linus a 10x-er?