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

81–90 of 217 posts

Re: 1x Programming

#81

Post by ratww »

Aperocky wrote: post #78
cracrecry wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I believe this is incorrect. The baseline (or 1x) is the lowest-performing member of the team. At least that's how I learned the term.

Re: 1x Programming

#82

Post by jchw »

bool3max wrote: post #69
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?

It’s only very slightly novel to apply solutions that we already know exist that were designed to solve a class of problems to a problem that nobody has done so for so far. Not being novel doesn’t mean it isn’t useful, though.

Re: 1x Programming

#83

Post by Aperocky »

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…

I don't think the original 10x programmer was by measuring lines of code they wrote at all..

Re: 1x Programming

#84

Post by jasode »

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?

>Spot a difference?

The difference you point out doesn't matter because not everyone who uses "10x" in conversation is rigorously tracing it back to the 1987 DeMarco and Lister "Peopleware".

And arguably, the "10x" had earlier origins in the 1968s studies by Sackman, Erikson, and Grant : https://www.google.com/search?q=10x+Sackman%2C+Erikson%2C+an...

But again, that 1968 origin doesn't matter because many people are just using "10x" as a rhetorical synonym for "really good programmer that's much better than average".

Re: 1x Programming

#85

Post by raz32dust »

If by 10x, you mean engineers that add 10x more value compared to an average engineer in the team, then from working 10+ years in the industry, it is abundantly clear to me that 10x programmers exist, and a good team is likely to have 5-10% of those. However, these engineers are rare, and when you do find them, they are not perfect. They might have flaws in other areas - communication and teamwork is a common one.

Most of these anti-10x engineer posts either assume a different meaning of 10x engineer or are unable to accept that engineering is a skill just like every other skill, there are masters and not every one can be a master. Every person cannot be a great engineer. Every engineer in your company/team does not need to be a master. But you need a few of them to be successful if software engineering is critical for your product.

Re: 1x Programming

#86

Post by ratww »

nescioquid wrote: post #40
phendrenad2 wrote: post #20

I've never met a 10x engineer. (Does that make me the 10x engineer? I doubt it). Personally I believe that the myth of the 10x engineer comes from the very real and very visible fact that often times, one engineer will be 10x as productive as someone sitting in the next desk over. Why is this? There are numerous factors, and certainly innate skill and programming practice come into play. But I think that only gets yo…

Nor have I, but I did work with someone who was regarded as such at a company I worked for. He got the reputation for shipping features fast, but everything he did was quick and dirty. This lead to some resentment with other developers tasked with extending the new features he shipped - invariably the simple extension to the feature would take longer than the original feature. Instead of indicating that everything th…

That's not really a 10x if they're doing a crappy job. I can close hundreds of bug tickets saying "not reproducible" without really trying, but that doesn't mean I was productive.

Re: 1x Programming

#87

Post by bcrosby95 »

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.

The secretly part is usually what doesn't happen. Most brag about it. You don't get paid extra regardless because most of us are salary and don't get overtime even if you work 80 hours per week.

Re: 1x Programming

#88

Post by tester756 »

raz32dust wrote: post #85

If by 10x, you mean engineers that add 10x more value compared to an average engineer in the team, then from working 10+ years in the industry, it is abundantly clear to me that 10x programmers exist, and a good team is likely to have 5-10% of those. However, these engineers are rare, and when you do find them, they are not perfect. They might have flaws in other areas - communication and teamwork is a common one. Mo…

I don't really like to write it, but it also works both ways - there are also "-10x" programmers, they peak in a opposite way

It's a mix of chaotic tech skills, approach to technology, terrible communication and ego.

Re: 1x Programming

#89

Post by jollybean »

Most programmers are -X programmers.

Anything above +0.5 is fine.

2 is amazing.

Above that it's in spurts, luck, or some kind of specific focus or area of focus and it's usually necessary and you risk actually having failure, in which the >2x is mitigated by failure back to something normalized lower.

Re: 1x Programming

#90

Post by emodendroket »

Undoubtedly there are many skills other than programming that go into making a successful project. But if I hire an accountant I don't necessarily want career advice from him. Similarly, I'll give my opinions from a technical standpoint, but I don't tell my boss what product he wants to sell.
Post reply on HN