3 ms·

10X is real. Spend some time in the enterprise. There really are programmers who only write 10 lines of code per day, maintaining bullshit that should have been

10X is real. Spend some time in the enterprise. There really are programmers who only write 10 lines of code per day, maintaining bullshit that should have been taken out to pasture years ago, and who "flip the switch" on learning at age 23. And they're paid good money for it, too! Probably more than 90+ percent of the people here. It's not necessarily "10". It's somewhere between 1.5 and 1000 depending on the project. It's 2-3x for typical business work; 10+ for infrastructural work that multiplies across the company (i.e. makes everyone more productive). I'm writing about developer economics (Part 22 of a series that was supposed to be 22 parts, but will be 23). What 10X means is: give me a million bucks a year, or let me have 90% autonomy, or we both lose. And if more developers took that attitude, we'd have better software, more learning, and a better fucking world, too. Ok, I declare myself winner of this thread and I am taking it home with me.

ebiester 14y ago
Yeah, but what do those ten lines do? I have a piece that's coming out soon on this, but we need to rethink how we're measuring "10x." Is it speed of code? I know people who can write thousands of lines of poorly formatted code quickly. Is it the breadth of knowledge of the field and domain? I'll show you 10 lines of code in shell that can solve a client's problem. It's entirely possible to be slow but efficient. Is it pure focus and dedication? I know people who can code 10 hours a day, others who can only code 3 hours before their brain is tired. Knowing which is which doesn't tell you who is the more productive programmer. Perhaps it's the "smart" one. I know people who can solve deep problems, but they can't code a business app quickly. Yet we treat the two as the same developer skill. And what of someone who excels at clean code? Does this say anything about their skill in general? All this is compounded by the way a developer presents themselves. We don't know if Steve Yegge is a great programmer or not, but he sounds like one. I've seen a lot of people who sound great. What if this is a skill in and of itself? If you can have a developer who can sit down with a customer who is angry, calm them down, find their needs and pain points, and create a small solution that's ugly as hell on the inside but serves the client's needs, is that a good developer? Perhaps we need to step back and re-evaluate what 10x actually means.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I prefer to use this scale: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajectory-of-a-software-engineer-and-where-it-all-goes-wrong/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajector... It's from 0.0 to 3.0, and the vast majority of professional programmers are in the 1.0 to 1.9 range. I consider myself a 1.8 with a 95% confidence interval at [1.55, 1.95] (more room on the left, because inaccuracy in self-measurement would correspond with lower ability; cf. Dunning-Kruger). The 1.0 level is basic professional competence-- you could get hired to write bank software. What most people call "10X" is 1.7-2.0, but there are so many contextual factors that it's hard to say how it really plays out. In some jobs, the 2.0 is worth 100 times more than the 1.0; in others, she's only worth 50% more; in still others, she's worth less than a 1.0 because she'll fight the existing way of doing things.
snappy173 14y ago
It's not necessarily "10". It's somewhere between 1.5 and 1000 depending on the project. It's 2-3x for typical business work; 10+ for infrastructural work that multiplies across the company (i.e. makes everyone more productive). I'm writing about developer economics (Part 22 of a series that was supposed to be 22 parts, but will be 23). in other words, it's all about leverage. 10x in the abstract probably doesn't make sense, but a good developer that is able to leverage that ability can produce real value. and of course, the opposite is true. if a cowboy style developer produces a ton of work while taking on technical debt, and this isn't probably accounted for, the technical debt can spiral out of control. this of course slows everybody else down, and the cowboy's reputation as the 10x is reinforced ... yeah, i've been there ... no i'm not bitter.

ebiester 14y ago

Yeah, but what do those ten lines do? I have a piece that's coming out soon on this, but we need to rethink how we're measuring "10x." Is it speed of code? I know people who can write thousands of lines of poorly formatted code quickly. Is it the breadth of knowledge of the field and domain? I'll show you 10 lines of code in shell that can solve a client's problem. It's entirely possible to be slow but efficient. Is it pure focus and dedication? I know people who can code 10 hours a day, others who can only code 3 hours before their brain is tired. Knowing which is which doesn't tell you who is the more productive programmer. Perhaps it's the "smart" one. I know people who can solve deep problems, but they can't code a business app quickly. Yet we treat the two as the same developer skill. And what of someone who excels at clean code? Does this say anything about their skill in general? All this is compounded by the way a developer presents themselves. We don't know if Steve Yegge is a great programmer or not, but he sounds like one. I've seen a lot of people who sound great. What if this is a skill in and of itself? If you can have a developer who can sit down with a customer who is angry, calm them down, find their needs and pain points, and create a small solution that's ugly as hell on the inside but serves the client's needs, is that a good developer? Perhaps we need to step back and re-evaluate what 10x actually means.

michaelochurch 14y ago
I prefer to use this scale: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajectory-of-a-software-engineer-and-where-it-all-goes-wrong/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajector... It's from 0.0 to 3.0, and the vast majority of professional programmers are in the 1.0 to 1.9 range. I consider myself a 1.8 with a 95% confidence interval at [1.55, 1.95] (more room on the left, because inaccuracy in self-measurement would correspond with lower ability; cf. Dunning-Kruger). The 1.0 level is basic professional competence-- you could get hired to write bank software. What most people call "10X" is 1.7-2.0, but there are so many contextual factors that it's hard to say how it really plays out. In some jobs, the 2.0 is worth 100 times more than the 1.0; in others, she's only worth 50% more; in still others, she's worth less than a 1.0 because she'll fight the existing way of doing things.

snappy173 14y ago

It's not necessarily "10". It's somewhere between 1.5 and 1000 depending on the project. It's 2-3x for typical business work; 10+ for infrastructural work that multiplies across the company (i.e. makes everyone more productive). I'm writing about developer economics (Part 22 of a series that was supposed to be 22 parts, but will be 23). in other words, it's all about leverage. 10x in the abstract probably doesn't make sense, but a good developer that is able to leverage that ability can produce real value. and of course, the opposite is true. if a cowboy style developer produces a ton of work while taking on technical debt, and this isn't probably accounted for, the technical debt can spiral out of control. this of course slows everybody else down, and the cowboy's reputation as the 10x is reinforced ... yeah, i've been there ... no i'm not bitter.