4 ms·

Can you please explain the numbers 2.0+, 1.4-1.5, etc. when referring to a programmer's skill. I have never seen this before.

• nostrademons 12y ago
  It's michaelochurch's rating system for programmers: 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... I've never seen it used by anyone other than him either.
• michaelochurch 12y ago
  Roughly speaking, it represents the transition from an adder to a multiplier. A 1.0 programmer is competent at "adder" tasks (scripts, bug fixes, features) but not yet ready for infrastructural work. A 2.0 programmer is highly competent as a multiplier. It goes from 0.0 (complete beginner) to 3.0 (global multiplier) but most (probably 99%) professional software engineers are between 0.8 and 2.2, with a median around 1.1-1.2. This is more up to date than nostrademons's link:http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/gervais-macleod-23-the-shodan-programmer/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/gervais-macle... Also, from Quora: http://www.quora.com/What-do-the-top-1-of-software-engineers-do-that-the-other-99-do-not/answer/Michael-O-Church http://www.quora.com/What-do-the-top-1-of-software-engineers...
  • orbifold 12y ago
    Reminds me of Landau's logarithmic rating of physicists by productivity from 5 to 0, with 0 being Newton, 0.5 Einstein, etc.
    • michaelochurch 12y ago
      This isn't general enough to apply to computer scientists, nor do I intend it as an all-purpose ranking for software engineers. It's an approximate measure of a generalist's professional development. It's not really applicable to, say, machine learning experts.