4 ms·

> I see a lot of articles claiming that programming talent is a myth. Yet none cite a source or back up this claim That's because the article writers have rare

by brador 11y ago

> I see a lot of articles claiming that programming talent is a myth. Yet none cite a source or back up this claim That's because the article writers have rarely worked with a 10x programmer. They get shit done, fast, with massively below average bugs. It comes from a deep understanding of the code, the language, and the metal. They're also more likely to innovate and/or find novel solutions. In the past they were spread around or sometimes in research (Bell), now they're clustered in the big 4 (Google, Apple, Microsoft, FB) and SF. So unless you are where they are, you won't find them or even know they exist. That guy who can wrote a cool Jquery plugin at your startup probably isn't a 10x programmer. John Carmack would be an example of a 10x.

pkolaczk 11y ago
The guy who is at your startup may actually be a better programmer than some of those who work for the big 4 you named. Many super-hero programmers are not motivated by working for huge companies with an established name, nor by the slightly better money they give compared to startups. I personally know some programmers at Google / FB / Apple / Microsoft and I also know a few working for startups or doing their own startups and, while all of them are probably one of the best I know, there is no obvious skill level difference between them and definitely not "10x".
- jghn 11y ago
  GP didn't say all programmers at the big 4 were like that, just that most of such programmers were at the big 4. These are all huge companies so anecdotal evidence involving "some programmers" is unlikely to overlap.
  - pkolaczk 11y ago
    Indeed those are huge companies and they probably have more skilled people than the average, but I seriously doubt they have most of the best programmers. Simply the amount of people working there is too small to cover even 1% of the best programmers in the world. And there are plenty of skilled programmers working in places where those huge companies do not have even an office, and there are plenty of programmers not considering working there for various reasons.
    - jghn 11y ago
      Agree but they likely have a disproportionate amount of the top 0.01% or whatever extreme number you want to use
    - Joky 11y ago
      since you can define the cutoff for "best" as you want, you can say 1% while someone else would say that that cover 10000%...
userbinator 11y ago
Fabrice Bellard (LZEXE, QEMU, ffmpeg, tcc, ...) is another example, although not many know about him - which agrees with your last point.
- PaulHoule 11y ago
  If you read hacker news you would notice that an article about him comes up every week or so. The same article.
michaelochurch 11y ago
That's because the article writers have rarely worked with a 10x programmer. They get shit done, fast, with massively below average bugs. It comes from a deep understanding of the code, the language, and the metal. They're also more likely to innovate and/or find novel solutions. In the past they were spread around or sometimes in research (Bell), now they're clustered in the big 4 (Google, Apple, Microsoft, FB) and SF. The issue is that people are mostly context. Some programmers do well at Google and wouldn't do well in another corporate environment, and vice versa. "10x" is real-- hell, sometimes it's 100x or 1000x-- but it ignores the fact that it's not always the same people who are 10x. Drop an R&D innovator into a subordinate role where he's just expected to "get shit done, fast" and churn tickets, and you'll likely have a bored 0.3x or toxic -5x programmer. 10x is shorthand for "as important to the business as an executive", and good engineers often are more critical than many highly paid executives. The problem is that the terminology is a bit negative on "average" programmers and the idea that "10x" is a permanent identity is a bit silly.
- kamaal 11y ago
  >>10x is shorthand for "as important to the business as an executive" This is very true. Another thing is lack of a clear purpose. To wake up every morning and to fix bugs day after day, without any higher or a coherent goal to chase demotivates people badly. The only other thing I which causes burn out I know of is lack of meaningful rewards. To know that there so much politics around and you are being treated unfairly. And you are failing repeatedly for reasons beyond your control. I don't know of one single person worth I know of who can't handle a lot of work or can't take long working hours. But at least give us a cause worth fighting for.

by brador 11y ago

pkolaczk 11y ago

The guy who is at your startup may actually be a better programmer than some of those who work for the big 4 you named. Many super-hero programmers are not motivated by working for huge companies with an established name, nor by the slightly better money they give compared to startups. I personally know some programmers at Google / FB / Apple / Microsoft and I also know a few working for startups or doing their own startups and, while all of them are probably one of the best I know, there is no obvious skill level difference between them and definitely not "10x".

jghn 11y ago
GP didn't say all programmers at the big 4 were like that, just that most of such programmers were at the big 4. These are all huge companies so anecdotal evidence involving "some programmers" is unlikely to overlap.
- pkolaczk 11y ago
  Indeed those are huge companies and they probably have more skilled people than the average, but I seriously doubt they have most of the best programmers. Simply the amount of people working there is too small to cover even 1% of the best programmers in the world. And there are plenty of skilled programmers working in places where those huge companies do not have even an office, and there are plenty of programmers not considering working there for various reasons.
  - jghn 11y ago
    Agree but they likely have a disproportionate amount of the top 0.01% or whatever extreme number you want to use
  - Joky 11y ago
    since you can define the cutoff for "best" as you want, you can say 1% while someone else would say that that cover 10000%...

userbinator 11y ago

Fabrice Bellard (LZEXE, QEMU, ffmpeg, tcc, ...) is another example, although not many know about him - which agrees with your last point.

PaulHoule 11y ago
If you read hacker news you would notice that an article about him comes up every week or so. The same article.

michaelochurch 11y ago

That's because the article writers have rarely worked with a 10x programmer. They get shit done, fast, with massively below average bugs. It comes from a deep understanding of the code, the language, and the metal. They're also more likely to innovate and/or find novel solutions. In the past they were spread around or sometimes in research (Bell), now they're clustered in the big 4 (Google, Apple, Microsoft, FB) and SF. The issue is that people are mostly context. Some programmers do well at Google and wouldn't do well in another corporate environment, and vice versa. "10x" is real-- hell, sometimes it's 100x or 1000x-- but it ignores the fact that it's not always the same people who are 10x. Drop an R&D innovator into a subordinate role where he's just expected to "get shit done, fast" and churn tickets, and you'll likely have a bored 0.3x or toxic -5x programmer. 10x is shorthand for "as important to the business as an executive", and good engineers often are more critical than many highly paid executives. The problem is that the terminology is a bit negative on "average" programmers and the idea that "10x" is a permanent identity is a bit silly.

kamaal 11y ago
>>10x is shorthand for "as important to the business as an executive" This is very true. Another thing is lack of a clear purpose. To wake up every morning and to fix bugs day after day, without any higher or a coherent goal to chase demotivates people badly. The only other thing I which causes burn out I know of is lack of meaningful rewards. To know that there so much politics around and you are being treated unfairly. And you are failing repeatedly for reasons beyond your control. I don't know of one single person worth I know of who can't handle a lot of work or can't take long working hours. But at least give us a cause worth fighting for.