51–60 of 144 posts
When he describes what he does he's describing a 10x engineer. 10x doesn't mean you write 10x more code, it means you deliver 10x more problem solutions
This concept often hurts people’s egos, who search for some counterbalance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It might have been an estimation task, akin to a Fermi problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're 1x, Evan Wallace is 10x, and the pour souls in question are 0.1x.
It's almost as if we were all on some sort of spectrum.
I've met plenty of devs who are better at relieving technical debt than fulfilling business requirements.
Who is measuring the productivity?
When he describes what he does he's describing a 10x engineer. 10x doesn't mean you write 10x more code, it means you deliver 10x more problem solutions
Unfortunately even the most prolific and very successful CEOs and management in our industry often fail to understand this. A couple years ago I was rejected from a 3rd round interview for a very large company that should have known better for the primary reason that my "coding challenge" exercise didn't meet an arbitrary lines of code minimum, despite meeting all of their requirements. And of course we have the rece…
Is there any evidence of this claim that isn't yellow press and random gossip on Twitter?
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.
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.
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".
When he describes what he does he's describing a 10x engineer. 10x doesn't mean you write 10x more code, it means you deliver 10x more problem solutions
Some people deliver 10x more code. Good, solid code… more of it and often simply better. This concept often hurts people’s egos, who search for some counterbalance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Their manager.
What's the difference between a 0.1x engineer and a 10x engineer? Their manager.