Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Busting the 10x software engineer myth

swarmia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 356 posts

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#81

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

dijit wrote: post #3

I know "10x engineers" exist; some people are fakes and put forward things that look like they have high impact but are actually a bit shoddy. Some people like to be present and suck up. But some people really do just work hard, smart and have deep passion for what they're doing- and importantly: pride, which makes the quality of the content great too. Some of the best engineers I know "visit" bits of code or infrast…

Is it really that 10x performers exist, or that 0.4x performers are abundant so 2x performers look like 10x performers?

I guess what I'm asking is if there is any actual data on this so we can look at actual statistics or if it is all just a meaningless blogspam topic.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#82

Post by bryanrasmussen »

woliveirajr wrote: post #54
phreeza wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea funnily enough I just added a comment along these lines about restaurants in a different story. Just because an engineer is 10x better in some sense that another one, it doesn't meant that 10 of the lower quality engineers will make up for it, just as eating 10 times at McDonald's isn't going to be as much fun as eating once at a great restaurant (for most people)

But, I think, you should consider that it's 10x at McDonald's vs 1x at a good restaurant and 9 days eating nothing at all.

only if you think that any organization that hires a 10X engineer doesn't hire any 1X engineers.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#83

Post by 988747 »

There's a twisted version of this "myth" that I encoutered: The demand for software developers grows much faster than the supply, so there is a temptation to hire wildly incompetent people, hoping that they still be able to deliver good enough product. As a result we have "1x" engineers, which are competent but rare, and "0.1x" code monkeys trying to get by.

Or to put it in a different way: "In the land of blind, the one-eyed is a king".

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#84

Post by coldtea »

You cannot bust it because most of us have empirical evidence of a 10x engineer (whether it's 10x, 20x, or merely 3x doesn't matter -- there are engineers who can and hold projects all by themselves, with top-notch code and utmost speed and quality design).

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#85

Post by coldtea »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #81
dijit wrote: post #3

I know "10x engineers" exist; some people are fakes and put forward things that look like they have high impact but are actually a bit shoddy. Some people like to be present and suck up. But some people really do just work hard, smart and have deep passion for what they're doing- and importantly: pride, which makes the quality of the content great too. Some of the best engineers I know "visit" bits of code or infrast…

Is it really that 10x performers exist, or that 0.4x performers are abundant so 2x performers look like 10x performers? I guess what I'm asking is if there is any actual data on this so we can look at actual statistics or if it is all just a meaningless blogspam topic.

>Is it really that 10x performers exist, or that 0.4x performers are abundant so 2x performers look like 10x performers?

Performance is relative, so if the norm is 0.4x, that's the actual "1x" base to just 10x programmers by, even if it's below what a 0.4x programmer could potentially achieve if they really tried.

In other words, if most devs are underperforming due to complacency, lack of motivation, etc., that should also factor in in the 10x programmer calculation.

So, 10x doesn't have to be "10x as good when both are 100% motivated" just "10x as effective" is enough (even if it's because they are more motivated and not actually more intelligent, knowlegeable etc).

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#86

Post by go13 »

Well, if there are software companies that have 1.5x growth and there are that produce 10x and some produce 100x growth, then by definition developers in the 100x company are 10x more efficient than those in 10x company, assuming the factor a developer plays in company growth is significant.

It feels like these myths busters are a bit left leaning.

Sames as a topic about whether Tim Cook deserves his huge pay/bonus, to which the answer to the left leaning academic is, can you find a replacement for him?

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#87

Post by dkersten »

garybake wrote: post #24
hawk_ wrote: post #6

> Wrote hard-to-understand procedural code to 5000-line files. Did not actively share knowledge with his peers. The author seems to mean prima donna, not a 10x engineer and then goes on to destroy that strawman. Actively sharing knowledge, mentoring etc... and code and architectural simplicity are a given for someone who's 10x productive. Most of the costs are in maintenance not the initial delivery and a 10xer's out…

This here. I think the author is confusing what a 10x developer is. I took the 10x dev to mean somebody who may work efficiently but also improves all of the devs around them. Improving yourself by 2x is one thing but improving the team around you by 2x is where you get the 10x.

> the author is confusing what a 10x developer is.

Its a subjective definition. You have a different one to the author. sneak has a different definition to you.

That's a part of the problem: there's no clear definition and the label "10x developer" means different things to different things.

Some of these definitions definitely are a myth. Some are not. But the conversations about it tend to not be that meaningful, because everyone argues their own definition, which may or may not match up with other people who are also arguing theirs. The best we can do is define our definition and then state our reasoning about it and then others can agree or disagree or say yes but if you define it this way that I do, then its different because whatever.

Right now, everyone has a different definition and the discussion isn't that useful.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#88

Post by cies »

dijit wrote: post #3

I know "10x engineers" exist; some people are fakes and put forward things that look like they have high impact but are actually a bit shoddy. Some people like to be present and suck up. But some people really do just work hard, smart and have deep passion for what they're doing- and importantly: pride, which makes the quality of the content great too. Some of the best engineers I know "visit" bits of code or infrast…

If a brittle piece of JS (with high support cost due to runtime errors) is replaced with a piece of Elm, the runtime errors are gone.

The one that made the decision to change it, and actually ported the code, easily wins the 10x badge when we consider the high support cost of that brittle piece of JS code in production.

> institutional knowledge is lost.

Exactly! Say a dev rewrote the brittle piece of JS to resilient JS, and did this REALLY fast. Great, you may have a 10x'er on your team! But in this case the knowledge is merely with one guy, he has the experience and discipline to write resilient JS: something rarely found in human beings. In this case the 10x'er may be a 10x coder, but not a 10x architect/techlead/CTO.

Hence I dont like to depend on human's experience and discipline, but prefer to fix it with Real Good Tech and Tooling(TM).

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#89

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

coldtea wrote: post #85
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that 10x performers exist, or that 0.4x performers are abundant so 2x performers look like 10x performers? I guess what I'm asking is if there is any actual data on this so we can look at actual statistics or if it is all just a meaningless blogspam topic.

> Is it really that 10x performers exist, or that 0.4x performers are abundant so 2x performers look like 10x performers? Performance is relative, so if the norm is 0.4x, that's the actual "1x" base to just 10x programmers by, even if it's below what a 0.4x programmer could potentially achieve if they really tried. In other words, if most devs are underperforming due to complacency, lack of motivation, etc., that sho…

What I'm getting at is if our 1x is defined by average or median, essentially. Of course without actual data it is impossible to say.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#90

Post by coldtea »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #89
coldtea wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it really that 10x performers exist, or that 0.4x performers are abundant so 2x performers look like 10x performers? Performance is relative, so if the norm is 0.4x, that's the actual "1x" base to just 10x programmers by, even if it's below what a 0.4x programmer could potentially achieve if they really tried. In other words, if most devs are underperforming due to complacency, lack of motivation, etc., that sho…

What I'm getting at is if our 1x is defined by average or median, essentially. Of course without actual data it is impossible to say.

Abstractly it's nice to know.

But practically does it really matter?

Even if we knew the case, one can't just e.g. whip 0.4x into 1x, so a 2x remains a very valuable 2/0.4 jump.

Post reply on HN