3 ms·

I think like a lot of myths, there is a kernel of truth in the 10x programmer myth. The fact is, some problems are hard. Some problems are beyond the grasp of

by vkjv 12y ago

I think like a lot of myths, there is a kernel of truth in the 10x programmer myth. The fact is, some problems are hard. Some problems are beyond the grasp of some developers. Even given unlimited time an individual may not ever accomplish the goal. I can certainly think of problem sets where that is true of myself. In those specific circumstances, that person can be considered a "10x programmer" when compared with another.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pc86 12y ago
Ten times zero is still zero. It's a given that some people are more productive than others. They are faster typists, or they can architect a system of similar quality faster, or they can just write good code faster. But remember the idea of 10x came from studies of similarly experienced programmers. And supposedly, the order of magnitude comes from actual data, although I've never been able to see it. For most trivial problems, or for a given domain, I think it's easier to say one programmer is qualitatively better than another. But that may change if the domain or code base changes, and in my experience as the problems you're solving get more and more complex, it becomes impossible (or at best just boils down to who you think can crank out a POC faster, which is itself probably a specific domain of programming). I just have trouble accepting the argument that one person is literally, quantitatively, empirically ten times the programmer as someone else. Maybe that makes me one of the 1x's :)
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  > But remember the idea of 10x came from studies of similarly experienced programmers. And supposedly, the order of magnitude comes from actual data, although I've never been able to see it. How are we determining experience? If we are talking about years in the field, years with a given language, years using a given language in the same way? 'Experience' is fluid enough of a word that it would be crucial to have an agreed upon concrete definition before we could continue.
- cauterized 12y ago
  The whole point of the article is that the original claim from the original data is suspect and quite likely extremely outdated even if it was a valid conclusion in the first place.
  - pc86 12y ago
    That's my point as well (which I probably didn't articulate well enough).
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
It is more than a kernel of truth if you've worked in certain areas. I believe in x100 and x1000 programmers because I've seen individuals who have introduced negative productivity (and I don't mean juniors who take time to get brought up to speed).
onion2k 12y ago
That might be true, but those problems are rare. The majority of developers will never encounter one, and if they do they'll use a library or middleware to solve the problem and they'll just move on, maybe without even realising they've faced a problem they could never have solved themselves.
strommen 12y ago
Agree 100%. Joel had a great essay on this back in the day called "Hitting the High Notes" [1] Perhaps a better way to look at this is to assume the average is 3X, and there exist developers at X, 10X, 0X, -X, and everywhere in between. And this productivity depends massively on circumstances like the size and makeup of the team, the established codebase, and the technical difficulty of the work. I've worked with several individuals that are absolutely a 10x for a technically-difficult project where they are leading the architecture, but range from -1X to 0X as a regular contributor to a large project. 1. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html
emodendroket 12y ago
Well, sure. I suppose the canonical example is Ron Jeffries flailing around for several blog posts trying to write a sudoku solver without coming anywhere near achieving it. I still don't think it's helpful to uncritically repeat the stuff about "10X developers," though.

by vkjv 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pc86 12y ago

Ten times zero is still zero. It's a given that some people are more productive than others. They are faster typists, or they can architect a system of similar quality faster, or they can just write good code faster. But remember the idea of 10x came from studies of similarly experienced programmers. And supposedly, the order of magnitude comes from actual data, although I've never been able to see it. For most trivial problems, or for a given domain, I think it's easier to say one programmer is qualitatively better than another. But that may change if the domain or code base changes, and in my experience as the problems you're solving get more and more complex, it becomes impossible (or at best just boils down to who you think can crank out a POC faster, which is itself probably a specific domain of programming). I just have trouble accepting the argument that one person is literally, quantitatively, empirically ten times the programmer as someone else. Maybe that makes me one of the 1x's :)

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
> But remember the idea of 10x came from studies of similarly experienced programmers. And supposedly, the order of magnitude comes from actual data, although I've never been able to see it. How are we determining experience? If we are talking about years in the field, years with a given language, years using a given language in the same way? 'Experience' is fluid enough of a word that it would be crucial to have an agreed upon concrete definition before we could continue.
cauterized 12y ago
The whole point of the article is that the original claim from the original data is suspect and quite likely extremely outdated even if it was a valid conclusion in the first place.
- pc86 12y ago
  That's my point as well (which I probably didn't articulate well enough).

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

It is more than a kernel of truth if you've worked in certain areas. I believe in x100 and x1000 programmers because I've seen individuals who have introduced negative productivity (and I don't mean juniors who take time to get brought up to speed).

onion2k 12y ago

That might be true, but those problems are rare. The majority of developers will never encounter one, and if they do they'll use a library or middleware to solve the problem and they'll just move on, maybe without even realising they've faced a problem they could never have solved themselves.

strommen 12y ago

Agree 100%. Joel had a great essay on this back in the day called "Hitting the High Notes" [1] Perhaps a better way to look at this is to assume the average is 3X, and there exist developers at X, 10X, 0X, -X, and everywhere in between. And this productivity depends massively on circumstances like the size and makeup of the team, the established codebase, and the technical difficulty of the work. I've worked with several individuals that are absolutely a 10x for a technically-difficult project where they are leading the architecture, but range from -1X to 0X as a regular contributor to a large project. 1. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html

emodendroket 12y ago

Well, sure. I suppose the canonical example is Ron Jeffries flailing around for several blog posts trying to write a sudoku solver without coming anywhere near achieving it. I still don't think it's helpful to uncritically repeat the stuff about "10X developers," though.