11–20 of 248 posts
I don't think a lot of people with 10+ years of experience would say no ( if you do, it may be time to change company).
There are two kinds of developers: 1. Those who are good developers 2. Those who can't write any real code (cargo cult or cut&paste developers, e.g. the 25% who I didn't hire over the years because they were not able to FizzBuzz)(25%-50% of the market) The 10x comes from comparing (1) and (2) - although dividing anything by 0 is larger than 10x.
+1 however I think there is a 3rd kind of developer as well. The 3rd being those who CAN do fizzbuzz/codekata style tests but when faced with a real programming problem in real code base they falter.
https://leanpub.com/leprechauns
I liked it
Nor is there a way to quantify "good code" in any scientific manner. It IS possible to identify obviously bad code, BUT "good code" comes in a variety of forms and looks different depending on the experience level of the developer.
In the end, many of the measures that people apply to assess programmers are simply a matter of personal opinion.
edit: downvoters - if you think I'm wrong then please explain your counter opinion, don't just downvote. A downvote without a counter opinion simply confirms my assertion that there is no science to this because you won't identify what that science is, you have only a vague opinion that I am wrong.
The thing about the 10x claim is that it takes something complex and creative and applies a scalar multiplier to it.
Talking about 10x programmers is _semantically_ problematic.
But as I understand it, the "10x" means 10 times the productivity of an average programmer. I wonder how productive the average programmer is. I find this question super interesting.
For example, I see more and more programmers who use "Query Builders" and "ORM layers" without understanding the underlying database mechanics.
Coding this way not only takes multiple times longer then - for example - just writing plain SQL. It also often results in code that runs hundreds or thousands of times slower. And complexity explodes as the project grows.
I have the feeling that - with the rise of frameworks - this might be the new "average" of coding. If so, then there definitely are coders who are orders of magnitude more productive then this average.
I've certainly known some 1/10x programmers. I'm a 10x programmer by comparison.
How about negative-times programmers: Programmers that decrease productivity by introducing bugs and broken features that costs more time to manage & fix than the sum of the value added. Programmers writing features that add points of failures to previously working systems
I have no doubt that there are programmers who are 10x as productive as other programmers. I witnessed it over and over. But as I understand it, the "10x" means 10 times the productivity of an average programmer. I wonder how productive the average programmer is. I find this question super interesting. For example, I see more and more programmers who use "Query Builders" and "ORM layers" without understanding the und…
I imagine the "10x developer" would just be really good at avoiding this kind of thing ... most of the time.
just like the 10x CEO. They just make the right decisions and hence are compensated accordingly. Companies like MS and google have sufficient data to tell us whether the 10x programmer is a meaningful term.
A lot of being a successful CEO is being at the right place at the right time (of course: in addition to actual qualities).
Anecdote time:
I once was a franchisee of a major (services) franchise that some time ago decided to expand to Germany (I sold my franchise years ago). I'll only talk about one person, but this happened throughout the network, it wasn't nearly as successful as hoped in this country.
So anyway, I personally know one of the guys who lead one of the best franchises in a major German city. He expanded, became responsible for the entire wider area (which allowed him a cut from all franchises in it in exchange for recruiting new franchisees and for advising them).
He had this exact opinion (and he was a former business consultant too, I think he even has an MBA), when a franchisee didn't do well that he just wasn't good enough. He himself was proof, after all, just do your customer acquisitions and all the necessary stuff,and success will eventually come! It worked for him!
When a franchisee failed he acquired their shop, it was in the same city and they seemed to be in very good areas, lots of businesses that fit the description of the target market. Not a big risk one would think given that his own shop was doing exceedingly well with the exact same demographics, just a few miles away.
Long story short, he ended up giving up the franchise for the area as well as the two additional shops he had acquired. Today he has just that one original location. Turned out that the exact same extremely successful guy only managed to be successful in one spot. Not even in very promising areas just a few miles away did it work out!
There were more stories like this, some of them I knew personally (through franchisee training at the beginning where I met many of them), all people who were formerly employed and "important people" in their jobs, and who all thought that it's all about you and the effort and skills you put in. Some of them managed to indeed build a successful business, but they all became much more humble over time, because they all found the large amount of randomness in their success when they tried to expand (area franchise or another shop).
So, tell me again about those successful CEOs, I'd like to learn more... the books are full of such people, successful in one place and time and failing in another place and/or time. Because they themselves are only one ingredient into what is needed for success, and not even the major one ("necessary but not [even nearly] sufficient").
Also I love, love this line: "10 engineers writing the wrong code could definitely be out performed by a single engineer writing the right code."
Especially as it extends up the chain -- 10 employees building the right product can outperform 100 employees building the wrong product. Etc.