3 ms·

That’s not what 10x means to me. It means 10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. I don’t think anybody can dispute that 10x programmers

That’s not what 10x means to me. It means 10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. I don’t think anybody can dispute that 10x programmers exist, Bellard, DJB and Carmack being uncontroversial examples. What’s controversial is the distribution. Are 10x programmers bound to become famous through their outsized contributions, such that their number is very few? Or are there a large enough number of 10x programmers working in obscurity such that you might have one on your team?

carlmr 4y ago
>10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. You assume the median is competent.
dvh 4y ago
You don't ask 10x programmer to do 10x more forms or 10x more report generators than median programmer. You ask them to do the hardest things that your median programmers wouldn't be able to do. You all them to do the switch to new framework, you ask to conceptually change the way you make those forms and reports and save 10x or 100x more time in 6 months.
trashtester 4y ago
> That’s not what 10x means to me. It means 10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. There are quite a few engineers/devs out there that produces negative net value, when taking into account management overhead and other resources consumed (even when ignoring their salary). Some of these are just in the wrong place, they don't have the talent, skills or motivation to work well with their team, and but might be "competent" in another team. Even at the median level, output may often lack creativity and inspiration, and add relative little value. The functions they do may be easy to oursource, replace by standardized software or could be built by better developers much more quickly and with higher quality. I think in most companies who do software development, at least half of net value is generated by the top 5-10% or so developers. (Making them 10x engineers compared to the median). These are the ones that drive new ideas and approaches successfully (instead of chasing cargo cults for no benefit), they are the one that write the code that other developers imitate and build on top of, and they are the ones that contribute to team engagement and cooperation. (Or at least 2/3 above.) As for the number being 10x the average developer, that's much lower, since the top 10% pulls the average up quite far from the median. I would guess 0.1%-1% is 10x the average, depending on company. These would be the ones that are able to identify and solve problems others are not even aware exist (or have given up on), the ones that understand the business they're in better than most product managers, and actively drive development of killer apps/features that others didn't even consider. Often they're entrepeneurs or leaders as much as developers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pedrosorio 4y ago
> It means 10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. Echoing what others have written. The median programmer is a not a "competent programmer". The median programmer is pretty bad. EDIT: Or to be precise, "competence" depends on how you measure it. The "median programmer" is certainly competent at many tasks. But there are plenty of programming/engineering challenges that the median programmer is completely unqualified to perform.

carlmr 4y ago

>10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. You assume the median is competent.

dvh 4y ago

You don't ask 10x programmer to do 10x more forms or 10x more report generators than median programmer. You ask them to do the hardest things that your median programmers wouldn't be able to do. You all them to do the switch to new framework, you ask to conceptually change the way you make those forms and reports and save 10x or 100x more time in 6 months.

trashtester 4y ago

> That’s not what 10x means to me. It means 10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. There are quite a few engineers/devs out there that produces negative net value, when taking into account management overhead and other resources consumed (even when ignoring their salary). Some of these are just in the wrong place, they don't have the talent, skills or motivation to work well with their team, and but might be "competent" in another team. Even at the median level, output may often lack creativity and inspiration, and add relative little value. The functions they do may be easy to oursource, replace by standardized software or could be built by better developers much more quickly and with higher quality. I think in most companies who do software development, at least half of net value is generated by the top 5-10% or so developers. (Making them 10x engineers compared to the median). These are the ones that drive new ideas and approaches successfully (instead of chasing cargo cults for no benefit), they are the one that write the code that other developers imitate and build on top of, and they are the ones that contribute to team engagement and cooperation. (Or at least 2/3 above.) As for the number being 10x the average developer, that's much lower, since the top 10% pulls the average up quite far from the median. I would guess 0.1%-1% is 10x the average, depending on company. These would be the ones that are able to identify and solve problems others are not even aware exist (or have given up on), the ones that understand the business they're in better than most product managers, and actively drive development of killer apps/features that others didn't even consider. Often they're entrepeneurs or leaders as much as developers.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pedrosorio 4y ago

> It means 10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer. Echoing what others have written. The median programmer is a not a "competent programmer". The median programmer is pretty bad. EDIT: Or to be precise, "competence" depends on how you measure it. The "median programmer" is certainly competent at many tasks. But there are plenty of programming/engineering challenges that the median programmer is completely unqualified to perform.