4 ms·

> But if I had any kind of point, it would probably be that spending the time to do things like write tools and explore the debugging space is pretty much alway

> But if I had any kind of point, it would probably be that spending the time to do things like write tools and explore the debugging space is pretty much always worth it. > Strangely, I've found that there is a not-insignificant number of people are against this - especially in a professional environment. I think this has something to do with the JIRA-fication of development process, where all work is divided and sub-divided, and anything that does not directly check a box and produce a deliverable is wasted effort. It's disheartening that there is a whole group of people - developers and managers alike - who do not understand or see the value in exploration as part of the process. So true, being able to create your own small tools is a superpower which is often at the heart of 10x programmers. It is sadly an art often practiced in the shadow.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
10x developers (sweeping generalization here) are often not the ones that are beholden to a manager / product owner telling them what has the highest priority though. Whether that's because they won't be told what to do, are the manager themselves, or have no manager at all is not known to me. That said, writing your own tools if applicable is useful, however I'd argue that a productive developer writes the least code and instead uses what's off the shelf. To use this article as an example, nobody should be writing their own TCP stack, there are perfectly fine existing implementations. That said that said, writing your own stuff is probably the best way to get a deep understanding, and a deep understanding of things is a constituent part of the mythical 10x developer. I just wouldn't expect any employer to pay you for it.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  The reason a “10x developer” can work on whatever they want is because it only takes 10% of their work hours to complete their job requirements- they are then free to experiment and play with a lot of their time.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    I second this notion. In my experience, the most efficient / effective developers get to work on all sorts of interesting problems because they can finish their "regular" work so quickly.
- evoke4908 2y ago
  A good manager recognizes that a good 10x developer needs minimal management. Not that they don't need managing, but that too much management throws a wrench in the mental gears and drags them down, burns them out, and forces them to quit. All they need is a light hand on the steering wheel to keep them pointed at the right problems. But sibling comment is also right. The 10x developer has more "free" time outside of their Jira tickets. Some choose to focus on the next business problem, others drift and experiment. Either way the business problem gets solved and you retain a very skilled employee. Their explorations may turn up something valuable, or just add to their own personal dragon hoard of skills, when then usually still benefits you in the end
duxup 2y ago
I've run into this as well. There's a cog in the wheel developer and ... they have their place, and in many orgs they're the only thing that works. But if you're not that person (and I like to think I'm not) and you are curious and stop to think about second order effects, future features that are a little obvious, and so on ... it's really painful working with those developers who do not. I worked with one recently, not a bad person at all, but now I'm cleaning up his project that 100% did exactly what the tickets told him to do. And the project that he worked on that was designed to replace a piece of software that had issues ... has every single issue the old one had for all the same reasons (someone coded it in the easiest possible way + only what the ticket told them to). So frustrating. I will say this though, I find the use of the term "10x developer" a sort of buzzword smell for the kind of reckless developer with no oversight who "gets the job done" at great cost ... because they can do what they want and then everything is siloed and potentially a disaster when anyone has to touch it or they bolt when it becomes clear their tower of cards is ready to come down. Not to say I disagree with your statement generally, just that term tends to make me worry.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  I'd say that there are two kinds of 10x devs, as per who is doing the determination of '10x': 1. From the perspective of the money folks (managers & up): they get their jobs done very quickly, thus spending minimal time, meaning minimal money. 2. From the perspective of excellent systems design folks: they design an excellent system that addresses subtle problems and foresees and addresses system problems that will occur down the road. Type #2 folks tend to not add to the org's technical debt; Type #1 folks don't GAF about such considerations -- they meet their quotas, get their perf reviews, and are on their way to their next promotion/position/project. I'd say there is excellence for excellence's sake, and then there's money-making excellence. Sure, orgs need to make money (or at least break even) to survive, but there's a lot of overlap where being too much one way or the other will be an impediment to long-term viability.
  - dapperdrake 2y ago
    And then at Boeing with #1 the doors fall off…
Neywiny 2y ago
Yep. I've had both polar reactions: "Wow that's really helpful. Your tool confirmed our model." And "Did you ask the PM first? You have to be careful with rabbit holes." I usually just do it if it'll be under a day's worth of work. It's never gone wrong and never gone to waste. At worst I and up copy/pasting the code into something else later
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Me too. #2: Run away...
jhwhite 2y ago
I'm not sure it's Jira-fication. I think it's mapping effort back to something that has a direct result to the bottom line. Example: I used to work for a company that basically made slot machines. We needed to produce something called parsheets to give to submit to get our slots certified and to the casino. I was given the project but no manager wanted to give any developers to implement it. No one wanted to give the money to buy a computer with enough power to run simulations to produce the theoretical hold. But this was something we NEEDED to help get our games approved.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  You left us hanging: So, what happened?
nomel 2y ago
> It's disheartening that there is a whole group of people - developers and managers alike - who do not understand or see the value in exploration as part of the process. To steelman, because, as Frank is sending ethernet packets, we're stuck picking up the slack, doing things that are part of the job description, that are needed by the org as a whole. Why doesn't he just innovate in the actual problem we're working on, since there's a near infinity backlog? I think, ideally, everyone is given exploration time, but that requires a manager that can strictly defend it, even when upper management is made aware of it and inevitably says "we need <project> done sooner". It's also a problem when other managers become aware of it with "You're allowing that team to hire more to compensate for the "lost time"? We need those people!". It really needs to be an org level thing, which even Google gave up on [1]. "Unethical" solution: Pad your development time to include some of it. [1] https://hrzone.com/why-did-google-abandon-20-time-for-innovation/ https://hrzone.com/why-did-google-abandon-20-time-for-innova...
- akira2501 2y ago
  > we're stuck picking up the slack You may be on a team that has decided "developer burnout" is just an inevitable and acceptable cost of business. > since there's a near infinity backlog? Which is a problem in and of itself. In any case I'm only going to be able to give you like 4, real, solid hours of work a day on that log. The other 4 will be team coordination, managing that log, and stress management maybe while I hate eat my lunch. > everyone is given exploration time Call it "skill investment time." We're in a fast moving industry and keeping heads down for too long is destructive personally and organizationally. It's also the pathway to getting more than the basic level of engagement above.
  - nomel 2y ago
    > You may be on a team that has decided "developer burnout" No. Burnout is a work life balance thing more than a "doing work at work that is related to the business" thing. Fun can be had outside of work hours, just as everyone else who is employed handles it. You can give people meaningful work they're interested in and still keep it related to the actual business. > Which is a problem in and of itself. Absolutely not. If you don't have a near infinity list, then that means you don't have a roadmap. Why aren't you thinking about the future? > Call it "skill investment time." Yes, and this can always be done in the context of the work. If it's not related to the work, or the business, then it's not an investment for the people paying you.
rdc12 2y ago
Recently at work I developed a small suite tools (in a mixture of python and shell, running in WSL) that left my boss impressed when he saw me debugging a customers system (IOT). Then he started asking me to make them accessible to non programmers, and suddenly those tools seemed a lot more than I bargained for.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

10x developers (sweeping generalization here) are often not the ones that are beholden to a manager / product owner telling them what has the highest priority though. Whether that's because they won't be told what to do, are the manager themselves, or have no manager at all is not known to me. That said, writing your own tools if applicable is useful, however I'd argue that a productive developer writes the least code and instead uses what's off the shelf. To use this article as an example, nobody should be writing their own TCP stack, there are perfectly fine existing implementations. That said that said, writing your own stuff is probably the best way to get a deep understanding, and a deep understanding of things is a constituent part of the mythical 10x developer. I just wouldn't expect any employer to pay you for it.

_yb2s 2y ago
The reason a “10x developer” can work on whatever they want is because it only takes 10% of their work hours to complete their job requirements- they are then free to experiment and play with a lot of their time.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  I second this notion. In my experience, the most efficient / effective developers get to work on all sorts of interesting problems because they can finish their "regular" work so quickly.
evoke4908 2y ago
A good manager recognizes that a good 10x developer needs minimal management. Not that they don't need managing, but that too much management throws a wrench in the mental gears and drags them down, burns them out, and forces them to quit. All they need is a light hand on the steering wheel to keep them pointed at the right problems. But sibling comment is also right. The 10x developer has more "free" time outside of their Jira tickets. Some choose to focus on the next business problem, others drift and experiment. Either way the business problem gets solved and you retain a very skilled employee. Their explorations may turn up something valuable, or just add to their own personal dragon hoard of skills, when then usually still benefits you in the end

duxup 2y ago

I've run into this as well. There's a cog in the wheel developer and ... they have their place, and in many orgs they're the only thing that works. But if you're not that person (and I like to think I'm not) and you are curious and stop to think about second order effects, future features that are a little obvious, and so on ... it's really painful working with those developers who do not. I worked with one recently, not a bad person at all, but now I'm cleaning up his project that 100% did exactly what the tickets told him to do. And the project that he worked on that was designed to replace a piece of software that had issues ... has every single issue the old one had for all the same reasons (someone coded it in the easiest possible way + only what the ticket told them to). So frustrating. I will say this though, I find the use of the term "10x developer" a sort of buzzword smell for the kind of reckless developer with no oversight who "gets the job done" at great cost ... because they can do what they want and then everything is siloed and potentially a disaster when anyone has to touch it or they bolt when it becomes clear their tower of cards is ready to come down. Not to say I disagree with your statement generally, just that term tends to make me worry.

MrMcCall 2y ago
I'd say that there are two kinds of 10x devs, as per who is doing the determination of '10x': 1. From the perspective of the money folks (managers & up): they get their jobs done very quickly, thus spending minimal time, meaning minimal money. 2. From the perspective of excellent systems design folks: they design an excellent system that addresses subtle problems and foresees and addresses system problems that will occur down the road. Type #2 folks tend to not add to the org's technical debt; Type #1 folks don't GAF about such considerations -- they meet their quotas, get their perf reviews, and are on their way to their next promotion/position/project. I'd say there is excellence for excellence's sake, and then there's money-making excellence. Sure, orgs need to make money (or at least break even) to survive, but there's a lot of overlap where being too much one way or the other will be an impediment to long-term viability.
- dapperdrake 2y ago
  And then at Boeing with #1 the doors fall off…

Neywiny 2y ago

Yep. I've had both polar reactions: "Wow that's really helpful. Your tool confirmed our model." And "Did you ask the PM first? You have to be careful with rabbit holes." I usually just do it if it'll be under a day's worth of work. It's never gone wrong and never gone to waste. At worst I and up copy/pasting the code into something else later

throwaway2037 2y ago
Me too. #2: Run away...

jhwhite 2y ago

I'm not sure it's Jira-fication. I think it's mapping effort back to something that has a direct result to the bottom line. Example: I used to work for a company that basically made slot machines. We needed to produce something called parsheets to give to submit to get our slots certified and to the casino. I was given the project but no manager wanted to give any developers to implement it. No one wanted to give the money to buy a computer with enough power to run simulations to produce the theoretical hold. But this was something we NEEDED to help get our games approved.

throwaway2037 2y ago
You left us hanging: So, what happened?

nomel 2y ago

> It's disheartening that there is a whole group of people - developers and managers alike - who do not understand or see the value in exploration as part of the process. To steelman, because, as Frank is sending ethernet packets, we're stuck picking up the slack, doing things that are part of the job description, that are needed by the org as a whole. Why doesn't he just innovate in the actual problem we're working on, since there's a near infinity backlog? I think, ideally, everyone is given exploration time, but that requires a manager that can strictly defend it, even when upper management is made aware of it and inevitably says "we need <project> done sooner". It's also a problem when other managers become aware of it with "You're allowing that team to hire more to compensate for the "lost time"? We need those people!". It really needs to be an org level thing, which even Google gave up on [1]. "Unethical" solution: Pad your development time to include some of it. [1] https://hrzone.com/why-did-google-abandon-20-time-for-innovation/ https://hrzone.com/why-did-google-abandon-20-time-for-innova...

akira2501 2y ago
> we're stuck picking up the slack You may be on a team that has decided "developer burnout" is just an inevitable and acceptable cost of business. > since there's a near infinity backlog? Which is a problem in and of itself. In any case I'm only going to be able to give you like 4, real, solid hours of work a day on that log. The other 4 will be team coordination, managing that log, and stress management maybe while I hate eat my lunch. > everyone is given exploration time Call it "skill investment time." We're in a fast moving industry and keeping heads down for too long is destructive personally and organizationally. It's also the pathway to getting more than the basic level of engagement above.
- nomel 2y ago
  > You may be on a team that has decided "developer burnout" No. Burnout is a work life balance thing more than a "doing work at work that is related to the business" thing. Fun can be had outside of work hours, just as everyone else who is employed handles it. You can give people meaningful work they're interested in and still keep it related to the actual business. > Which is a problem in and of itself. Absolutely not. If you don't have a near infinity list, then that means you don't have a roadmap. Why aren't you thinking about the future? > Call it "skill investment time." Yes, and this can always be done in the context of the work. If it's not related to the work, or the business, then it's not an investment for the people paying you.

rdc12 2y ago

Recently at work I developed a small suite tools (in a mixture of python and shell, running in WSL) that left my boss impressed when he saw me debugging a customers system (IOT). Then he started asking me to make them accessible to non programmers, and suddenly those tools seemed a lot more than I bargained for.