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

71–80 of 217 posts

Re: 1x Programming

#71

Post by ratww »

manmal wrote: post #68
ratww wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It definitely is. It happens with over-achievers but it also happens very frequently with under-achievers.

In jobs where people have quotas it is very visible, seeing people scrambling to finish it all by the end of the month, to the detriment of their free time. But this is also the "secret" of some over-achievers.

It's absolutely unhealthy.

Re: 1x Programming

#72

Post by gombosg »

gernb wrote: post #41

Something that came up recenty for me. I took a job at FAANG company and my productivity from my POV sucks! I doubt I've written more than 2k lines of code in 9 months! I'm debugging hardware/driver issues in a giant code base (~250k files) that I don't know and APIs I've not used before. Conversely, in my own hobby code I wrote ~2k lines in the last 10 days. It makes me wonder how often 10x is about circumstance vs…

Engineering productivity is not measured by LoC but by business outcomes, that's also what the author of the article is arguing about.

I'm not so fond of the phrase "software engineer" in that it's not a hard engineering discipline such as civil engineering. But companies need software developers who think and act like engineers. Engineers in general solve technical problems by applying methodical design, problem solving skills and having technical expertise.

Unless one works in a nonprofit or academic area, engineers are solving business problems for companies. Modern software companies with agile methodologies push engineers close to the business side, allowing them to add the most business value. Of course, many businesses suck at this and treat engineers like factory workers instead of creative individuals.

This varies a lot, depending on whether you're at a 10 person startup or at a FAANG company. Usually if the company has decent management then they have clear expectations of every position. In your case, this could be number of tickets solved or any other metric, but usually not lines of code. At least, I hope. :)

Re: 1x Programming

#73

Post by ratww »

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

At several companies I worked for, by using Scrum Points, it was always visible that the most experienced devs were able to regularly deliver a multiple (definitely around 10x) more points than interns and about 2x more than the average dev. Not a perfect metric by any means, of course, but definitely quantifiable and observable. Metrics for LOC and commits/PRs made also followed a similar pattern. Again, not perfect metrics, but it's what we had.

Like another poster said [0], it's not really 10x the average, it's 10x when comparing best vs worst.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31074087

Re: 1x Programming

#74

Post by gamerDude »

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 think your first principle is applicable to all. * Work is a means to an end. A job should support the lifestyle you want to achieve, not be an end on itself.

Whether a 10x programmer, a 1x programmer, a startup founder. We all have different views on what a well lived life is. Which could include being the best or prioritizing things outside work.

Re: 1x Programming

#75

Post by psyc »

duxup wrote: post #12

Way back when I first saw the 10x engineer proclamations I actually thought they were … a joke. Like a meme or something. They described a lot of anti social and strait up toxic behavior and seemed to glorify it. It was absurd. It seemed like the kind of behavior that would all but ensure someone thinks they’re so much more productive than everyone else, and would prevent them from ever seeing that they aren’t. I was…

I always found these discussions absurd as well. I’ve worked with people who were great team players (usually leads and principles, actually) who also produced quality code in a much shorter timeframe than anybody else. They also tended to be amazing mentors and role models.

I’ll glorify that all day.

Re: 1x Programming

#76

Post by mywittyname »

manmal wrote: post #68
ratww wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Crunch times are a thing in a lot of jobs.

Re: 1x Programming

#77

Post by _moof »

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 once had a boss who espoused all these principles while simultaneously telling us we needed to work nights and weekends to hit completely arbitrary deadlines. (American aerospace company.) I honestly couldn't believe what I was hearing. I stuck around just long enough to hit my cliff, buy a little stock, and then run for the hills.

Re: 1x Programming

#78

Post by Aperocky »

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.

10x is a really bad term, it tries to quantify a difference without a baseline.

The difference isn't in quantity, but imo rather in mentality. Relentlessly automating repeatable tasks can net 100x or 2x or 0.5x depending on context, but something that don't happen often enough.

Re: 1x Programming

#79

Post by ratww »

chrisweekly wrote: post #65
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".

It is an interesting observation when put side by side with the sibling post [0].

I think it really depends.

A senior that is 10x more productive than an intern or junior? That's perfectly fine, they are here to learn.

A mid-level dev that is 10x more productive than another mid-level? A bit of a red flag, and probably detrimental to the morale of the team.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31074653

Re: 1x Programming

#80

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN