3 ms·
One who writes quirky and individualistic code. Not crappy. It could be well organized. And even good. And even solve the problem, at the time when it was writt
by dchichkov 14y ago
One who writes quirky and individualistic code. Not crappy. It could be well organized. And even good. And even solve the problem, at the time when it was written.
But. If that code is approachable by any regular developer, when the original programmer would not be 10x. And management and peers wouldn't think about the original developer as 10x.
But if, the code is quirky and individualistic... a funny thing happens. Suddenly whoever works (or can rise up and work with that code for whatever reason) is 10x. And peers and management would see them as 10x.
I've seen that quite a number of times. Many times as 10x, as 1x and even a few as 0.1x.
- geon 14y agoGood code is dead simple to read and understand. That is what makes it good, because sooner or later, someone will need to read it and maintain it. Getting to that point is difficult, and may require a 10x programmer. But the end result is simplicity.
- klibertp 14y agoI think you misunderstand grand-parent. Once again I will use a quicksort example - we all know quicksort, even if not iterative, then surely recursive version, right? Ok, so here goes quicksort implementation that is dead simple and easy to read: quicksort=: (($:@(<#[), (=#[), $:@(>#[)) ({~ ?@#)) ^: (1<#) It's in J. Someone who wrote this has much higher chance of being 10x than someone who implemented the same algorithm in Python. That's all I think grandparent wanted to say and if so then I agree completely.
- dchichkov 14y agoSomeone who wrote this has much higher chance of being called 10x by peers and management. And someone who has to support that code has much higher chance of being called 0.1x by pears and management.