2 ms·
>always been well understood that a few good programmers, properly motivated, can potentially outperform a team of 100 But it's NOT because of the mythical "10
by warrenm 3y ago
>always been well understood that a few good programmers, properly motivated, can potentially outperform a team of 100
But it's NOT because of the mythical "10x programmer" (another Spolskyism)
It's because of communication overhead - in general, the smaller the team, the faster the solution
- 8chanAnon 3y agoI don't know about that. I have a few successes under my belt where I've outperformed a team. For example, delivering a solution in two months compared to a team of four failing to deliver anything at all in a year. Then there are the well known geniuses who delivered Doom and Quake in a spectacularly short time frame. There are many other examples. I do agree, however, that 10x programmers are few and far between.
- warrenm 3y agosure - I've rolled-out stuff in timeframes that made the team look bad ... and then had another project where, had I been working on it, we'd still be working on it doesn't make me a "10x engineer" nor does it make anyone else a "10x engineer" it makes us better at certain tasks than others - which is what you would expect among any population: there are people very good at riding bikes long distances (they try to win the Tour de France), there are others good at explaining obscure topics in a way anyone can feel good about learning them (they usually have YouTube channels or are history professors)