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

31–40 of 144 posts

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

#31

Post by sokoloff »

grangerg wrote: post #25
tartoran wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or airplane builder…

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

#33

Post by bluedino »

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.

Now do an ultra-marathoner

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

#34

Post by xeromal »

eloff wrote: post #28
mattkrause wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is leverage? VIM?

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

#36

Post by nerdponx »

eloff wrote: post #30
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.

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 esbuil…

So you're 1x, Evan Wallace is 10x, and the pour souls in question are 0.1x.

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

#37

Post by usrbinbash »

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.

It's just another round in an endlessly repeating cycle.

Remember "Unicorn Devs"? "Framework Evangelist"? "Superstar Developer?"

In a few years "10x dev" will fall out of use, and we will have the next term du jour. My money is on "Astronaut Dev".

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

#38

Post by zarzavat »

eloff wrote: post #30
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.

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 esbuil…

That’s not what 10x means to me. It means 10x the median productivity, i.e. 10x a competent programmer.

I don’t think anybody can dispute that 10x programmers exist, Bellard, DJB and Carmack being uncontroversial examples.

What’s controversial is the distribution. Are 10x programmers bound to become famous through their outsized contributions, such that their number is very few? Or are there a large enough number of 10x programmers working in obscurity such that you might have one on your team?

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

#40

Post by zarzavat »

xeromal wrote: post #34
eloff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is leverage? VIM?

Compare a programmer with good autocomplete to a programmer who has to keep stopping to look up documentation online. That’s a double digit % improvement just by installing the right plugins.
Post reply on HN