4 ms·

That's not what he is saying. His header is: "There is no such thing as a 10X developer (without a 10X environment)." It's p->(q is possible), not p->q.

wvenable 12y ago
From the article: "Let’s first start with the mythical 10X developer: there is no such thing."
- wfaler 12y ago
  Case of "I'm going to pick the sentence I like the least out of its context and argue against that"?
  - wvenable 12y ago
    It's literally the first line of that section, the topic sentence of the paragraph it's contained in, and that paragraph is a defense of that premise. Hardly cherry picking. Ultimately though I feel like the flaw of the argument is the idea that there are all these great developers sitting around constrained by their environments. Great developers would be constantly frustrated by poor environments and would either change them or move on. What really happens is that these poor environments attract poor developers and nothing changes. Certainly no company can go out and hire and rock star or a ninja or whatever and save their organization if the organization is terrible. It could work, and it has worked, if the organization is willing to change. But more than likely said 10x developer would just move on when they couldn't affect the change necessary to produce 10x the output.
sheepmullet 12y ago
And that is not really true either. Many years ago I worked in the federal government and there were quite a few 10x developers and teams holding everything together despite the pretty poor environment and overall low quality.
seterval 12y ago
p->(q is possible) is a tautology. It does not carry any information.
- bobloblawblah 12y ago
  Wow. Why were you downvoted? I'm the one who made the mistake & you're of course correct.
dragonwriter 12y ago
I think it would be more precise to say ¬p → ¬q rather than p → (q is possible), where p = E is a 10× Environment and q = ∃ a 10× developer in E.

wvenable 12y ago

From the article: "Let’s first start with the mythical 10X developer: there is no such thing."

wfaler 12y ago
Case of "I'm going to pick the sentence I like the least out of its context and argue against that"?
- wvenable 12y ago
  It's literally the first line of that section, the topic sentence of the paragraph it's contained in, and that paragraph is a defense of that premise. Hardly cherry picking. Ultimately though I feel like the flaw of the argument is the idea that there are all these great developers sitting around constrained by their environments. Great developers would be constantly frustrated by poor environments and would either change them or move on. What really happens is that these poor environments attract poor developers and nothing changes. Certainly no company can go out and hire and rock star or a ninja or whatever and save their organization if the organization is terrible. It could work, and it has worked, if the organization is willing to change. But more than likely said 10x developer would just move on when they couldn't affect the change necessary to produce 10x the output.

sheepmullet 12y ago

And that is not really true either. Many years ago I worked in the federal government and there were quite a few 10x developers and teams holding everything together despite the pretty poor environment and overall low quality.

seterval 12y ago

p->(q is possible) is a tautology. It does not carry any information.

bobloblawblah 12y ago
Wow. Why were you downvoted? I'm the one who made the mistake & you're of course correct.

dragonwriter 12y ago

I think it would be more precise to say ¬p → ¬q rather than p → (q is possible), where p = E is a 10× Environment and q = ∃ a 10× developer in E.