5 ms·

Have you read those references? Or are you just quoting them blindly? Laurent Bossavit has read them, and he reports that they are, for the most part, reportin

Have you read those references? Or are you just quoting them blindly? Laurent Bossavit has read them, and he reports that they are, for the most part, reporting on each other and on anecdotes. There is no actual, scientific evidence for the "10x programmer." He writes up his search for the evidence in his book "The Leprechauns of Software Development." It's a fascinating look at how a supposedly-rational group of people has taken a myth and blown up into well-known "fact."

igouy 14y ago
Have you read those references? Or are you just quoting Laurent Bossavit blindly?
- jdlshore 14y ago
  I've read and understood the reference I've provided (Bossavit), and I've also read and understood the reference justin_vanw provided (McConnell), so no, I'm not quoting Bossavit blindly. After reading both, I found Bossavit much more convincing. In addition to meticulously following the chains of references back to the original research, Bossavit also examines how science is done and what is required in order for a claim to become established scientific fact. His conclusion is that the evidence for the 10x claim is "quite weak." Here's my summary of his material from the last time this came up ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4118034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4118034 ). There's much more to Bossavit's research than my quotes here, so if you disagree, please read and rebut his work directly, not just these quotes. "How strong is the support conferred to the 10x claim by the best-reputed list of references, for a reader persistent enough to follow the chain of citations back to primary sources? "Based on our close reading of the “10x files”, we can now answer: quite weak. "Not a single one of the references is to a replication, in the scientific sense of the term, of the original exploratory experiment. "The empirical data is in general quite old, most if not all of it predating widespread use of the Internet - which we can safely expect to have wrought major changes in programming practice. "None of the studies address the question of construct validity, that is, how meaningful it is to speak of an individual programmer’s productivity, and if it is meaningful, whether the experimental measurements line up adequately with that meaning." [1] [1] The Leprechauns of Software Engineering explores what science is and how we distinguish between fact and folklore in software engineering. It specifically explores the 10x claim, and determines that it's folklore. http://leanpub.com/leprechauns http://leanpub.com/leprechauns
  - igouy 14y ago
    > so no, I'm not quoting Bossavit blindly As far as McConnell; as for the other references, aren't you taking Bossavit's claims on trust?
    - jqjester 14y ago
      Steve McConnell himself doesn't dispute Bossavit's claims about the earlier studies (for the most part), he just disagrees about the significance of those claims. See McConnell's rebuttal in which he acknowledges the methodological weaknesses of the citations: http://www.construx.com/10x_Software_Development/Origins_of_10X_%E2%80%93_How_Valid_is_the_Underlying_Research_/ http://www.construx.com/10x_Software_Development/Origins_of_... .
      - igouy 14y ago
        What specifically are you pointing to within that blog post and comment stream? (Let's make sure I look at exactly what you mean me to see.)
        jqjester 14y ago
        Sure - I'm pointing to the section titled "A Deeper Dive into the Research Supporting '10x'". I'm accepting one of Bossavit's claims on trust: he says that of McConnell's eight citations in support of the 10x claim, only two were original research based on empirical studies under controlled conditions (and of those two one only concerned debugging). I'm willing to trust that because it looks like McConnell mostly agrees. For example, regarding the 1986 Curtis paper, McConnell writes "Bossavit states that, “the 1986 Curtis article does not report on an empirical study.” I never stated that Curtis 1986 was an 'empirical study.'" Regarding DeMarco and Lister, he says "Editorial insinuations aside, that is a correct description of what DeMarco and Lister reported, both in the paper I cited and in Peopleware. Their 1985 study had some of the methodological limitations Sheil’s discussed in 1981". They disagree about what counts as evidence supporting the 10x claim, but apart from the Card 1987 citation (about which Bassavit was wrong), McConnell confirms Bossavit's claims about every citation.
papsosouid 14y ago
What are you talking about? You should read those references. Just download peopleware for fuck's sake, rather than regurgitating bullshit. There is strong evidence that the most productive programmers are 10x as productive as the least productive programmers.
- jdlshore 14y ago
  I've read Peopleware. Your mention of it is another example of the uncritical citation of references that Bossavit talks about in his book. Peopleware isn't a scientific study. It's a collection of essays and opinions by two authors I have a great deal of respect for. The closest it gets to science is an un-sourced discussion of DeMarco and Lister's "Coding War Games." In that discussion, it specifically says that differences in productivity (which were less than 10x) were likely due to workplace factors, not individual productivity. People constantly say that there's "strong evidence" supporting the 10x productivity, but no one ever quotes a scientific study that provides this evidence. At best, people list references, often without reading or understanding them--as you did with Peopleware. There could well be a 10x difference in productivity, but gut feel and testosterone-fueled claims aren't the same as science. (It's no surprise that there's no science backing the claim. In order to show evidence for a 10x difference in programmer productivity, you'd first have to define "programmer productivity" and come up with an unbiased measure of it. And that's surprisingly difficult, as some of the discussions in this thread have shown.)
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    >Your reference of it is another example of the uncritical waving of references that Bossavit talks about in his book. He says, while uncritically waving a single reference that has no backing evidence. You seriously don't see your hypocrisy here? >Peopleware isn't a scientific study Duh? That is why it contains citations, to the studies the authors conducted. You sure did a poor job of reading it if you are actually that ignorant. >In that discussion, it specifically says that differences in productivity (which were less than 10x) were likely due to workplace factors, not individual productivity. No, they were 10x. That is precisely what it says. And why do you suggest workplace factors being part of the difference makes the difference not exist? I don't even understand how you can say something that absurd and not realize it. >There could well be a 10x difference in productivity, but gut feel and testosterone-fueled claims aren't the same as science. Ok, I'll just take your ignorance-fueled gut feel claim as proof that all the scientific evidence doesn't exist.

igouy 14y ago

Have you read those references? Or are you just quoting Laurent Bossavit blindly?

jdlshore 14y ago
I've read and understood the reference I've provided (Bossavit), and I've also read and understood the reference justin_vanw provided (McConnell), so no, I'm not quoting Bossavit blindly. After reading both, I found Bossavit much more convincing. In addition to meticulously following the chains of references back to the original research, Bossavit also examines how science is done and what is required in order for a claim to become established scientific fact. His conclusion is that the evidence for the 10x claim is "quite weak." Here's my summary of his material from the last time this came up ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4118034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4118034 ). There's much more to Bossavit's research than my quotes here, so if you disagree, please read and rebut his work directly, not just these quotes. "How strong is the support conferred to the 10x claim by the best-reputed list of references, for a reader persistent enough to follow the chain of citations back to primary sources? "Based on our close reading of the “10x files”, we can now answer: quite weak. "Not a single one of the references is to a replication, in the scientific sense of the term, of the original exploratory experiment. "The empirical data is in general quite old, most if not all of it predating widespread use of the Internet - which we can safely expect to have wrought major changes in programming practice. "None of the studies address the question of construct validity, that is, how meaningful it is to speak of an individual programmer’s productivity, and if it is meaningful, whether the experimental measurements line up adequately with that meaning." [1] [1] The Leprechauns of Software Engineering explores what science is and how we distinguish between fact and folklore in software engineering. It specifically explores the 10x claim, and determines that it's folklore. http://leanpub.com/leprechauns http://leanpub.com/leprechauns
- igouy 14y ago
  > so no, I'm not quoting Bossavit blindly As far as McConnell; as for the other references, aren't you taking Bossavit's claims on trust?
  - jqjester 14y ago
    Steve McConnell himself doesn't dispute Bossavit's claims about the earlier studies (for the most part), he just disagrees about the significance of those claims. See McConnell's rebuttal in which he acknowledges the methodological weaknesses of the citations: http://www.construx.com/10x_Software_Development/Origins_of_10X_%E2%80%93_How_Valid_is_the_Underlying_Research_/ http://www.construx.com/10x_Software_Development/Origins_of_... .
    - igouy 14y ago
      What specifically are you pointing to within that blog post and comment stream? (Let's make sure I look at exactly what you mean me to see.)
      - jqjester 14y ago
        Sure - I'm pointing to the section titled "A Deeper Dive into the Research Supporting '10x'". I'm accepting one of Bossavit's claims on trust: he says that of McConnell's eight citations in support of the 10x claim, only two were original research based on empirical studies under controlled conditions (and of those two one only concerned debugging). I'm willing to trust that because it looks like McConnell mostly agrees. For example, regarding the 1986 Curtis paper, McConnell writes "Bossavit states that, “the 1986 Curtis article does not report on an empirical study.” I never stated that Curtis 1986 was an 'empirical study.'" Regarding DeMarco and Lister, he says "Editorial insinuations aside, that is a correct description of what DeMarco and Lister reported, both in the paper I cited and in Peopleware. Their 1985 study had some of the methodological limitations Sheil’s discussed in 1981". They disagree about what counts as evidence supporting the 10x claim, but apart from the Card 1987 citation (about which Bassavit was wrong), McConnell confirms Bossavit's claims about every citation.

papsosouid 14y ago

What are you talking about? You should read those references. Just download peopleware for fuck's sake, rather than regurgitating bullshit. There is strong evidence that the most productive programmers are 10x as productive as the least productive programmers.

jdlshore 14y ago
I've read Peopleware. Your mention of it is another example of the uncritical citation of references that Bossavit talks about in his book. Peopleware isn't a scientific study. It's a collection of essays and opinions by two authors I have a great deal of respect for. The closest it gets to science is an un-sourced discussion of DeMarco and Lister's "Coding War Games." In that discussion, it specifically says that differences in productivity (which were less than 10x) were likely due to workplace factors, not individual productivity. People constantly say that there's "strong evidence" supporting the 10x productivity, but no one ever quotes a scientific study that provides this evidence. At best, people list references, often without reading or understanding them--as you did with Peopleware. There could well be a 10x difference in productivity, but gut feel and testosterone-fueled claims aren't the same as science. (It's no surprise that there's no science backing the claim. In order to show evidence for a 10x difference in programmer productivity, you'd first have to define "programmer productivity" and come up with an unbiased measure of it. And that's surprisingly difficult, as some of the discussions in this thread have shown.)
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >Your reference of it is another example of the uncritical waving of references that Bossavit talks about in his book. He says, while uncritically waving a single reference that has no backing evidence. You seriously don't see your hypocrisy here? >Peopleware isn't a scientific study Duh? That is why it contains citations, to the studies the authors conducted. You sure did a poor job of reading it if you are actually that ignorant. >In that discussion, it specifically says that differences in productivity (which were less than 10x) were likely due to workplace factors, not individual productivity. No, they were 10x. That is precisely what it says. And why do you suggest workplace factors being part of the difference makes the difference not exist? I don't even understand how you can say something that absurd and not realize it. >There could well be a 10x difference in productivity, but gut feel and testosterone-fueled claims aren't the same as science. Ok, I'll just take your ignorance-fueled gut feel claim as proof that all the scientific evidence doesn't exist.