My anecdotal experience is consistent with [CMU's] research: I don’t know anyone 10x faster than their peers in solving well-defined programming probl

My anecdotal experience is consistent with [CMU's] research: I don’t know anyone 10x faster than their peers in solving well-defined programming problems. But this data highlights why the debate continues: highly productive developers (10x or otherwise) are problem-solving at a much higher level. Their productivity won’t be apparent from a narrow test, any more than the overall skill of a world-class football player would be apparent from (say) how fast they could run the 100m dash. I've been anywhere from a 0.1x to a 10x programmer. Possibly even 0.01x to 100x we you count the years-long impact that architecture decisions can have. It wasn't my IQ, talent, or my work ethic that changed. Rather it was the opportunity. Note the example cited in the article. This was essentially a greenfield development opportunity for the author, and he implemented an extremely clever and effective solution. He had both the ability and the opportunity. 10x, indeed! The problem is that those opportunities are hard to come by. Most "software engineering" is just "hey, fix this bug in a big old tech-debt-ridden codebase" or "hey, implement a new feature in this big old tech-debt-ridden codebase." You can take the most talented and motivated developer in the world and they won't be 10x in a situation like that.