Busting the 10x software engineer myth

Of course, the smart choice for orgs is to do both. If I had to choose a single (and I don’t) I’d go with a few 10x progs over dozens of 1x because small teams work better in general due to coordination overhead.

This is no excuse for letting 10x be jerks and I would probably run away from any hiring notice that talked about 10x. I think this follows my observation that smart people don’t talk about being smart, they be smart.

They often seem to have the idea that it's more or less grunt work. Yeah, if a truck will haul 10 tonnes in one go, you'll get the same time if you hire an army of people, each carrying 10 kg on their backs, give or take economies of scale.

How this relates to 10x or not I don't know - I'm not sure the discussion is a productive one without further context.

It might be that for some tasks, Elm really does provide a huge benefit in productivity. In that case, it's probably fair to call a developer that selects and uses the tool correctly a 10x developer - provided they are able to evolve the culture of their company so that others can take advantage of it.

For other tasks, or in other contexts, Elm might be a hinderance. If it's lacking an indispensable library, or if the company culture is not ready to accept it as a core language, it won't help anyone to rewrite in Elm.

As always, one of the key things that makes a good (even 10x) developer is the ability to select the right tool, and to wield it gracefully.

I can't speak for other cultures, but the US has a fundamental mindset that all but worships "exceptionalism." We like mavericks, rule-benders, and exceptionally talented individuals. Being attractive, and having a winning [public] persona is also very helpful. Sometimes, good actors can use attractiveness and persona to cover up for a lack of accomplishment and substance, and often, people of great substance, are ignored, because they are not attractive, have "problematic" personalities, or are not particularly good at self-promotion.

I remember watching a documentary that compared the k-12 educational systems of the US, Germany and Japan. They looked at how high-performing students were treated, and how that affected their peers.

The US would concentrate on high performers, often to the detriment of their peers.

Japan would make high performers coach their peers.

They seemed to decide that Germany had the best approach. I don't remember exactly how that went (I remember extremes).

I'm a damn good engineer. Am I "10X"? I don't know, and don't care. I'm not in competition with anyone else. I get done what needs getting done, and I always have a ton of stuff I don't know, and still need to learn.

Another thing about the US culture (I was not raised in the US), is that it is highly competitive. We can't just be good at something; we need to be better than someone else.

That seems exhausting, to me.

I'm not competitive at all. I have worked on high-functioning teams, my entire career, and was never interested in competing with my teammates. The team competed against other teams, but that wasn't really anything that concerned me.