4 ms·

Why do people take some idea and totally botch it? Whole idea is taken out of context. There is nothing about "superhuman 10x dev" it was simple realization th

by ozim 4y ago

Why do people take some idea and totally botch it? Whole idea is taken out of context. There is nothing about "superhuman 10x dev" it was simple realization that IN ONE TEAM there are developers who are 10x faster to deliver tasks and there are slower devs. Just like in university group assignment there are slackers and there is that one person who does the assignment. Worst of all is that people start assigning "10x" to themselves or others or judge others as "0.1x" - which is meaningless out of very specific context.

robga 4y ago
My reading is that some hold a belief that the distribution of developer productivity/skill is not a Normal Distribution. Yes, in a normal distribution some on the right will be 10x those on the left. But as I read it, the “10x” advocates propose there is some sort of Guru Spike on the right hand side that’s specific enough to the realm of development to create a meme from it. I harbour skepticism that it’s anything but a normal distribution.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  I think this nails it. Programming, at least complex programming, is a gestalt of many skills ALL of which are probably a normal distribution (intelligence, focus, problem solving, political savvy, curiosity, experience, etc. etc.) How could it NOT have at least a 0.1x to 10x distribution?
cjonas 4y ago
To me the concept doesn't even have to mean that individual is outputting 10x amounts of code or closing 10x stories... More so it means that there ideas, abstractions and frameworks result in substantially higher productivity for anyone working on the project than the average dev. Beyond just the talent to do this successfully, you also have to give people the space and freedom to actually do 10x work... This tends to extend well beyond the narrow scoped requirements written in the current sprint of tickets.
- Nemi 4y ago
  Bingo. 10x is not about how fast someone codes. That is why there is confusion here. Of course someone cannot write code consistently 10x as fast or write 10x as much code. On a regular basis? That is nonsensical. When talking about 10x devs (or 10x any type of employee), it is about Judgement. The decisions they make on what they work on, how they achieve it, and (probably most importantly) what they choose NOT to work on. Judgement is the deciding factor in whether someone has a 10x impact on the business over time. It absolutely is not how much code they write. As a matter of fact, removing code can be a 10x improvement as well.
soneca 4y ago
I disagree that a regular 1x programmer is comparable to someone slacking off on a university group assignment. I prefer the sports analogy, where there are some stars with disproportional impact in the outcome of games, but who work with other also very hard-working, professional athletes. No one is slacking around, there is just some people that are better. Also, I do think there are 10x programmers that are 10x in a myriad of contexts, not just one team. I am not botching your idea, I just have a different perspective of what the term “10x” means.
- ozim 4y ago
  You are not botching my idea but Fred Brooks idea: *Programming managers have long recognized wide productivity variations between good programmers and poor ones. But the actual measured magnitudes have astounded all of us. In one of their studies, Sackman, Erikson, and Grant were measuring perfor- mances of a group of experienced programmers. Within just this group the ratios between best and worst performances averaged about 10:1 on productivity measurements and an amazing 5:1 on program speed and space measurements! In short the $20,000/year programmer may well be 10 times as productive as the $10,000/year one. The converse may be true, too. The data showed no correlation whatsoever between experience and per- formance. (I doubt if that is universally true.)*
photochemsyn 4y ago
Having five 3x programmers on a team is likely a more pleasant working situation than having one 10x and four 1x programmers - also, slightly more productive! I wonder which arrangment is harder to create?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by ozim 4y ago

robga 4y ago

My reading is that some hold a belief that the distribution of developer productivity/skill is not a Normal Distribution. Yes, in a normal distribution some on the right will be 10x those on the left. But as I read it, the “10x” advocates propose there is some sort of Guru Spike on the right hand side that’s specific enough to the realm of development to create a meme from it. I harbour skepticism that it’s anything but a normal distribution.

Ensorceled 4y ago
I think this nails it. Programming, at least complex programming, is a gestalt of many skills ALL of which are probably a normal distribution (intelligence, focus, problem solving, political savvy, curiosity, experience, etc. etc.) How could it NOT have at least a 0.1x to 10x distribution?

cjonas 4y ago

To me the concept doesn't even have to mean that individual is outputting 10x amounts of code or closing 10x stories... More so it means that there ideas, abstractions and frameworks result in substantially higher productivity for anyone working on the project than the average dev. Beyond just the talent to do this successfully, you also have to give people the space and freedom to actually do 10x work... This tends to extend well beyond the narrow scoped requirements written in the current sprint of tickets.

Nemi 4y ago
Bingo. 10x is not about how fast someone codes. That is why there is confusion here. Of course someone cannot write code consistently 10x as fast or write 10x as much code. On a regular basis? That is nonsensical. When talking about 10x devs (or 10x any type of employee), it is about Judgement. The decisions they make on what they work on, how they achieve it, and (probably most importantly) what they choose NOT to work on. Judgement is the deciding factor in whether someone has a 10x impact on the business over time. It absolutely is not how much code they write. As a matter of fact, removing code can be a 10x improvement as well.

soneca 4y ago

I disagree that a regular 1x programmer is comparable to someone slacking off on a university group assignment. I prefer the sports analogy, where there are some stars with disproportional impact in the outcome of games, but who work with other also very hard-working, professional athletes. No one is slacking around, there is just some people that are better. Also, I do think there are 10x programmers that are 10x in a myriad of contexts, not just one team. I am not botching your idea, I just have a different perspective of what the term “10x” means.

ozim 4y ago
You are not botching my idea but Fred Brooks idea: *Programming managers have long recognized wide productivity variations between good programmers and poor ones. But the actual measured magnitudes have astounded all of us. In one of their studies, Sackman, Erikson, and Grant were measuring perfor- mances of a group of experienced programmers. Within just this group the ratios between best and worst performances averaged about 10:1 on productivity measurements and an amazing 5:1 on program speed and space measurements! In short the $20,000/year programmer may well be 10 times as productive as the $10,000/year one. The converse may be true, too. The data showed no correlation whatsoever between experience and per- formance. (I doubt if that is universally true.)*

photochemsyn 4y ago

Having five 3x programmers on a team is likely a more pleasant working situation than having one 10x and four 1x programmers - also, slightly more productive! I wonder which arrangment is harder to create?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]