3 ms·

10x is IMO a bit of a myth. But even if we assume it is not, it can't be measured which is why it is difficult to reward 10x is arguable. But the 1000x program

10x is IMO a bit of a myth. But even if we assume it is not, it can't be measured which is why it is difficult to reward 10x is arguable. But the 1000x programmer (who is as good as a team of 1000) definitely doesn't exist. IMO.

merrua 12y ago
Hmm. But there does exist programmers who you could found a company built around that person. But it would be fair to argue that they are a thinker,
dagw 12y ago
10x or 100x or whatever is probably only true along a certain dimension. I don't doubt that there are programmers who are both 10x and 100x above the median at writing a high performance journaling filesystems, or fast, stable, multidimensional PDE solvers for example. But If you average it out over every conceivable programming task you probably won't find many 10x programmers. The other aspect is that just being good and fast doesn't make you money. You have to be good and fast at solving the right problem in the right way and then convince people to give you lots of money for that solution. If you can't do those last bits, you'll always end up working for someone earning more than you, no matter how good you are.
Dewie 12y ago
> But even if we assume it is not, it can't be measured which is why it is difficult to reward But isn't it more measurable than what an MBA in a senior/executive position does? If being part of writing a large software system is complex and hard to get right, and hard to measure progress on (technical debt v.s. features, for example), I can't imagine that running or managing a system of people - which are much less predictable than system components - is less complex, and in turn easier to measure when you factor in all external factors and things that an executive can't really do anything about (even though he might be responsible for it on paper). But I don't really know anything about the management world.

merrua 12y ago

Hmm. But there does exist programmers who you could found a company built around that person. But it would be fair to argue that they are a thinker,

dagw 12y ago

10x or 100x or whatever is probably only true along a certain dimension. I don't doubt that there are programmers who are both 10x and 100x above the median at writing a high performance journaling filesystems, or fast, stable, multidimensional PDE solvers for example. But If you average it out over every conceivable programming task you probably won't find many 10x programmers. The other aspect is that just being good and fast doesn't make you money. You have to be good and fast at solving the right problem in the right way and then convince people to give you lots of money for that solution. If you can't do those last bits, you'll always end up working for someone earning more than you, no matter how good you are.

Dewie 12y ago

> But even if we assume it is not, it can't be measured which is why it is difficult to reward But isn't it more measurable than what an MBA in a senior/executive position does? If being part of writing a large software system is complex and hard to get right, and hard to measure progress on (technical debt v.s. features, for example), I can't imagine that running or managing a system of people - which are much less predictable than system components - is less complex, and in turn easier to measure when you factor in all external factors and things that an executive can't really do anything about (even though he might be responsible for it on paper). But I don't really know anything about the management world.