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

I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

benjiweber.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 144 posts

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#21

Post by PedroBatista »

soganess wrote: post #20
satvikpendem wrote: post #14

Those here talking about what the author is saying is actually a 10x engineer are missing that he's criticizing the meme of a 10x engineer [0] over an actually 10x more productive engineer. In a way, it's more of a joke article responding to a joke meme that has some good points over actually being a fully serious article criticizing actual 10x more productive engineers. [0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/10x-enginee…

Software folk taking the 10x thing seriously is akin to PC gamers unironically calling themselves the "PC master race". I have a hard time taking that conversation seriously.

The tragic thing is: Most of this industry takes the concept of the 10x, 100x developer very seriously.

Just talk to a manager and slide that into the conversation, I bet 9 out of 10 will recite the gospel unironically. I am guessing these numbers aren't that better for software developers.

Because all this can easily be mixed with job performance and effectiveness which are obviously real things.

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#22

Post by mattkrause »

PedroBatista wrote: post #21
soganess wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software folk taking the 10x thing seriously is akin to PC gamers unironically calling themselves the "PC master race". I have a hard time taking that conversation seriously.

The tragic thing is: Most of this industry takes the concept of the 10x, 100x developer very seriously. Just talk to a manager and slide that into the conversation, I bet 9 out of 10 will recite the gospel unironically. I am guessing these numbers aren't that better for software developers. Because all this can easily be mixed with job performance and effectiveness which are obviously real things.

A fun comparison is that Usain Bolt, who literally wins gold medals, is not even a 10x runner: a tenth of his world-record speed 100m works out to a brisk walk.

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#23

Post by bitexploder »

jongjong wrote: post #11

To "strive to be a 0.1x engineer" means that whenever you are presented with an option, you intentionally choose the worst option; the one which requires the most work, solves the problem in an inefficient way, doesn't align with the direction of the project and which will require constant maintenance and will need to be rewritten within a year or 2. 10x developers tend to code really slowly, much more slowly than 1x…

I always enjoy the various ways people mythologize the 10x developer. Everyone has their own apocrypha about what makes a 10x developer and how they behave and it is all so different.

Maybe there are a few out there, but mostly, they are myths constructed from stories that are constantly retold and changed until no one really knows exactly what makes a 10x developer, but are convinced they can intuit it when they see it :)

Source: read the comments here. I caught at least 4 different explanations of what a 10x developer really is or does.

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#24

Post by beebmam »

bitexploder wrote: post #23
jongjong wrote: post #11

To "strive to be a 0.1x engineer" means that whenever you are presented with an option, you intentionally choose the worst option; the one which requires the most work, solves the problem in an inefficient way, doesn't align with the direction of the project and which will require constant maintenance and will need to be rewritten within a year or 2. 10x developers tend to code really slowly, much more slowly than 1x…

I always enjoy the various ways people mythologize the 10x developer. Everyone has their own apocrypha about what makes a 10x developer and how they behave and it is all so different. Maybe there are a few out there, but mostly, they are myths constructed from stories that are constantly retold and changed until no one really knows exactly what makes a 10x developer, but are convinced they can intuit it when they see…

It's incredible how confident people are about the existence of some phenomenon when there is a total lack of credible sources about its existence (or even a commonly agreed definition for it!)

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#25

Post by grangerg »

tartoran wrote: post #18
bitL wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some "old school" management styles measure LoC and make hiring/firing decisions based on that. Really.

Someone should enlighten them that less LOC is good in solving a problem, granted that the code is also more maintenable due to smaller surface area and no bad shortcuts were taken. Yes, it’s hard for management types to get that, perhaps because most of them want the problems entrenchability creates, and that for their own … benefits.

Perhaps tell them the story of the 10x carpenter.

Obviously, the one who uses the most wood wins! ;) If told right, they should easily figure out why LoC is a horrible metric.

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#26

Post by fatneckbeardz »

hee hee

IMHO its not actually that hard to figure out what to work on if you talk to enough people. There is often some "L6" (the person six levels down in operations) who already knows what needs to be worked on but nobody has ever asked them ( https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-1-six-levels-d... )

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#27

Post by heromal »

bitL wrote: post #16
shepherdjerred wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an arbitrary lines of code minimum, despite meeting all of their requirements. There's no way this is true right? Why would anyone care about LoC for a coding challenge?

Some "old school" management styles measure LoC and make hiring/firing decisions based on that. Really.

I had a recruiter ask me a few days ago, on behalf of the HM, how many lines of code I've written in my career. I told him that's a very weird question, and said nothing else. Needless to say, they're passing on me.

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#28

Post by eloff »

mattkrause wrote: post #22
PedroBatista wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tragic thing is: Most of this industry takes the concept of the 10x, 100x developer very seriously. Just talk to a manager and slide that into the conversation, I bet 9 out of 10 will recite the gospel unironically. I am guessing these numbers aren't that better for software developers. Because all this can easily be mixed with job performance and effectiveness which are obviously real things.

A fun comparison is that Usain Bolt, who literally wins gold medals, is not even a 10x runner: a tenth of his world-record speed 100m works out to a brisk walk.

That's no leverage in running. There's a lot of leverage in software engineering. That's what allows such a wide diversity of productivity.

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#29

Post by coryrc »

mattkrause wrote: post #22
PedroBatista wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tragic thing is: Most of this industry takes the concept of the 10x, 100x developer very seriously. Just talk to a manager and slide that into the conversation, I bet 9 out of 10 will recite the gospel unironically. I am guessing these numbers aren't that better for software developers. Because all this can easily be mixed with job performance and effectiveness which are obviously real things.

A fun comparison is that Usain Bolt, who literally wins gold medals, is not even a 10x runner: a tenth of his world-record speed 100m works out to a brisk walk.

He's ten times faster than my grandfather could go 100m.

Re: I strive to be a 0.1x Engineer (2016)

#30

Post by eloff »

soganess wrote: post #20
satvikpendem wrote: post #14

Those here talking about what the author is saying is actually a 10x engineer are missing that he's criticizing the meme of a 10x engineer [0] over an actually 10x more productive engineer. In a way, it's more of a joke article responding to a joke meme that has some good points over actually being a fully serious article criticizing actual 10x more productive engineers. [0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/10x-enginee…

Software folk taking the 10x thing seriously is akin to PC gamers unironically calling themselves the "PC master race". I have a hard time taking that conversation seriously.

Do you guys work on the same industry as me? There's easily a 10x difference between the best guy on the team and the worst guy who's about to be on the performance plan. It's a real thing. A lot of programmers really suck. I interview them and wonder why they're in this industry to begin with. I'm easily 10x those guys, they struggle with for loops. Then there are some superstars like Evan Wallace who created esbuild, churning out some 50k lines of code in a year, while working full time as CTO of Figma. He's 10x me. So there's more than a factor of 100x there without getting into the really important part. Solving the right problem. That's really hard, and after twenty years I'm still trying to get a handle on it.

It's more than 100x really, because of you took one of those guys who can't grok for loops and asked him to create esbuild, they will never be able to do it.

There's a lot of leverage in software engineering, and a lot of room for difference between people.

Post reply on HN