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

1x Programming

tim.mcnamara.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 217 posts

Re: 1x Programming

#61

Post by jerf »

dsr_ wrote: post #28

In Peopleware, DeMarco and Lister write: Count on the best people outperforming the worst by about 10:1. Count on the best performer being about 2.5 times better than the median performer. Count on the half that are better-than-median performers outdoing the other half by more than 2:1. What nearly everyone who has read that remembers is the following: The best people outperform the average by 10x. Spot a difference?

Also note how sensitive the 10x number will mathematically be to your assessment of "the worst".

Since I believe in the existence of negative-value programmers, being 10x "more" than the worst would actually be a very bad thing.

Re: 1x Programming

#62

Post by [deleted] »

cracrecry wrote: post #43
angarg12 wrote: post #25

I praise 1x programmers, but for reasons that might go against the grain in HN. I'm from Spain so our working ethic is different from the Anglo-Saxon world. "Work to live, don't live to work" as the saying goes. My principles for a 1x programmer: * Work is a means to an end. A job should support the lifestyle you want to achieve, not be an end on itself. * 9-to-5 is a perfectly reasonable schedule. Fiercely protects…

The principle behind being a 10x programmer is not working more, but working less and using tools that multiply you. The 10x dominates the tools ( and techniques and people and capital) that multiply her. If you have a car you can easily and consistently go 10x faster that walking pace. The same applies for your job. Working on a given company, with access to capital and people and tools can multiply you.

[deleted]

Re: 1x Programming

#63

Post by unwind »

Izkata wrote: post #35
unwind wrote: post #11

Has anyone published some kind of quantified, "hard" comparison/survey about the relative productivity of programmers? It would be very interesting with a clean "we asked n programmers to solve this"-type problem, and then being able to compare the solutions. Uh, did I just sound like I wanted to work in recruiting? #fail

About a decade ago my company had a thing set up where were could complete coding challenges and other devs would rate them anonymously (so you couldn't rate a specific person highly unless you recognized their style). Once you completed a challenge you could see others' submissions and a ranking of how much someone's solutions were liked. Ordering was fairly consistent, with a few people recognizably always being in…

Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun and also (if the culture is right) like a great learning opportunity for many on the team. Since this was done at work, it kind of suggests a good culture, obviously.

Thanks for sharing!

Re: 1x Programming

#64

Post by rileymat2 »

jerf wrote: post #61
dsr_ wrote: post #28

In Peopleware, DeMarco and Lister write: Count on the best people outperforming the worst by about 10:1. Count on the best performer being about 2.5 times better than the median performer. Count on the half that are better-than-median performers outdoing the other half by more than 2:1. What nearly everyone who has read that remembers is the following: The best people outperform the average by 10x. Spot a difference?

Also note how sensitive the 10x number will mathematically be to your assessment of "the worst". Since I believe in the existence of negative-value programmers, being 10x "more" than the worst would actually be a very bad thing.

McConnell from code complete mention this, because in one of the studies the multiplier only comes from people who completed the task, meaning in actuality it was infinite.

Re: 1x Programming

#65

Post by chrisweekly »

dsr_ wrote: post #28

In Peopleware, DeMarco and Lister write: Count on the best people outperforming the worst by about 10:1. Count on the best performer being about 2.5 times better than the median performer. Count on the half that are better-than-median performers outdoing the other half by more than 2:1. What nearly everyone who has read that remembers is the following: The best people outperform the average by 10x. Spot a difference?

Tangent: apparently contra DeMarco and Lister, I'd argue that "the worst" are often outright detrimental to a team or project. Which in turn makes me question the "math".

Re: 1x Programming

#66

Post by mjburgess »

erikerikson wrote: post #48
mjburgess wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10x is about the meta, and meta can be the tools (or frameworks, metaprogramming, etc.).

Or good judgement and focus.

Sure, by meta I meant to include any system whose target is programming -- whereas programming has as its target the problem domain.

10x is systems for the system, including good judgment

Re: 1x Programming

#67

Post by throwaway889900 »

jt2190 wrote: post #22
Msw242 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a small team (8 devs) and we've focused a ton of energy on developer experience and ergonomics to reduce the cost of contribution and code reviews, and facilitate interaction with other stakeholders. I'm confident at this point that we've doubled productivity, which would make our "Head of" a 10x engineer :)

> Doubled productivity… 10x… Since we’re putting numbers on things, how did we go from 2x to 10x?

Logarithms probably

Re: 1x Programming

#68

Post by manmal »

ratww wrote: post #56
angarg12 wrote: post #25

I praise 1x programmers, but for reasons that might go against the grain in HN. I'm from Spain so our working ethic is different from the Anglo-Saxon world. "Work to live, don't live to work" as the saying goes. My principles for a 1x programmer: * Work is a means to an end. A job should support the lifestyle you want to achieve, not be an end on itself. * 9-to-5 is a perfectly reasonable schedule. Fiercely protects…

I agree that this work ethic is indeed healthier and with most of the list, but I want to make one caveat: a programmer working secretly after hours to deliver more is not really a 10x programmer, he's just someone doing unpaid overtime (and risking burnout). Truly 10x developers also only work 9-to-5, the same as 1x. I also disagree that continuously improving is unnecessary. It absolutely should IMO. But it should…

Is that really a thing, secretly working more to give the appearance of higher output, while not even getting paid for it? Given the little time we have on this planet, this sounds like a suboptimal use of it.

Re: 1x Programming

#69

Post by bool3max »

jchw wrote: post #17

I’m beginning to feel as though there simply isn’t that much novel code to write anyways. I very very much agree that programming is not inherently valuable, and is merely just a tool; I say this even as someone who got into programming at a young age and enjoys it for the sake of it. I think in some narrow domains I can write interesting, and perhaps even mildly novel code. But a huge majority of the time, working f…

> ... , we don’t need novel software most of the time. We need better boring software. More general, less buggy, faster.

Doesn't producing that kind of software involve novel, interesting ideas in the first place?

Re: 1x Programming

#70

Post by [deleted] »

latenightcoding wrote: post #42

I agree with almost everything here, but the essay is all over the place: it starts by trying to convince the reader that it's ok to be a 1x programmer and then proceeds to give pointers on how to write simpler code and how to work better on teams (which are different topics and skills that many 10xers possess)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN