Live data from Hacker News

There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

techfounder.net

31–40 of 173 posts

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#32
post #2

I think there are 10x developers because the vast majority are 1x.

That of course it depends on what you call a "developer" and what your standard of "1x developer" is. I know people who are full-time developers who I would class as less than 1x

So, Zipf rather than Bell .. ?

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#33
post #4

There is no offer of proof for the claim that there are no 10x developers past claiming "they've not seen it in practice" I have seen them with my own eyes. They are in fact, able to do things 10x faster than others. There are not a huge number of them, but they exist. At Google, folks like Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat are easily 10x more productive than "the baseline proficient engineer". Any proficient engineer wh…

I can believe 10x. Though, when people start throwing around numbers like, "A great developer is literally 1,000x more productive than an average developer!" I raise an eyebrow.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#34

I think the problem is that the author has normalized his development standard to proficient coders in the tech industry. I used to do enterprise software in the midwest and there are legions of 1/10th developers out there. Its easy move your baseline far away from the average when you are in the echo-chamber of high-tech startups. Compared to the true average developer there are definitely 10x developers.

I think the author's point was we should start calling a spade a spade.

Stop calling the 1/10th developers normal baseline and admit that even thought they may be the majority of developers, that doesn't mean we should accept that as the status quo.

I imagine this phenomenon is common in most professions. They are tons of accountants and arborists out there. I wonder if they have the same ratio of 'able' to 'efficient', or if some professions are better or worse.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#35
I'm not a 10x programmer. Probably will never be. I do know of programmers who not only are slower in shipping, but are very bad at designing coherent programs and data structures. That's my main observation. It's not that I'm X times better, its that they are X times slower and make poor design choices. Why? My experience has shown that this tends to happen with people who stop keeping up to date and stop learning.

Let's take my current job, for example. I'm working with a Python program designed to interact with 2 other programs. It is a middleman. The input comes in as text files, and the output goes out as text from a SQL query. The two programmers who built the system I'm working with (one from IBM, another from NASA, believe or not) had never heard of XML, or JSON. Every data structure inside the system is handled by reading and slicing around the contents of the text files. Slow, error prone, and tedious. My first step was to clean this up. I now have a small script that takes the input data text file and turns it into JSON. Since this data comes from an outside vendor, I don't get to pick the format (though I'm developing an API to handle this). After cleaning the data and saving it as JSON, I then simply load up the JSON file into memory and go through the program flow without issues. I removed the size of the program to about 25% of its original size. Plus its way, way faster. I also removed a bunch of database queries that simply did nothing. Was even able to add logging to the program.

Anyhow, the crazy part about it is that the actual code was worse. For those who know Python, using global variables for everything is considered pretty bad form. Here is an example that mimics the code base I inherited:

    #they called lists arrays
    an_array = []
    def foo(array):
    global bar, global hello, global hi
    if bar  1:
        print "something"
        array[0] = hi

Yeah. But wait, there's more. There is a web app written in (what else) flat PHP. It handles very critical information, and is plagued with:

    $foo = $_GET['foo'];
    sql = "INSERT INTO TABLE.NAME VALUE($foo)"; //not actual SQL 
They never clean, or sanitize the data. They don't even check if the GET array is empty.

It is obvious these two programmers stopped learning. They simply fell into what I call a learning slump. Where all new data simply goes out the moment it goes in.

    #Like so
    def new_data(data):
        return data

    #Instead of
    def new_data(data):
        #process data
        #insert data into database
        
Yet, I don't want to call myself better, because most people here are better than me. Yet this leaves me with quite a strange view of everything. I'm not a great programmer, but I'm not as bad as those guys who worked at some big name place. Where does that leave me? Who knows.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#36
I think that any model that bifurcates coders based on skill is absurd; but this description was uniquely outrageous. It assumes that skill is binary, and that there is never any room to improve beyond being a competent developer. If the maximum "level" a developer can attain is 1x, than there is no differentiation between competent and amazing coders.

In all honesty, these scales and the terminology which makes reference to them are absurd. There are average developers, there are mediocre developers, and there are excellent developers. People operate within a massive range of skill levels and have both talents and shortcomings. Trying to express ability as a binary determination made against an arbitrary baseline simply doesn't work.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#37
All the articles about "10x" developers, "1/10" developers, or "super" developers have not taught me anything about how to improve my skills, or a team's skills. Even the articles that promote the "10,000 hours" or "Just F'ing Do It" mantra feel like proselytizing without practical, or proven, methodologies.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#38
Developers is one thing, but how about sysadmin work? I think I've seen it there, too. I looked at the tickets worked by a group of people from June 1 to December 15 of a year far in the past. The counts looked like this:

119 348 353 409 515 559 572 634 722 779 830 1004 1029 1169 1345 1487 2096

That's a total of 13970 tickets closed by 17 techs. If you split it evenly, that's 821 each, or about 5.8%. The lowest tech only handled 0.85% of the load. The highest tech handled 15%! If you use the extremes, that's a 17x difference. It also means the top tech did almost 2.5x the "fair share" load of 5.8%.

Now, to be clear, tickets are not fungible. One ticket may be simple and another might take days to finish. Still, when there's that much of a difference, odds are the person at the top is doing all of them regardless of the complexity. That's the only way to find enough things to do.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#39

Developers is one thing, but how about sysadmin work? I think I've seen it there, too. I looked at the tickets worked by a group of people from June 1 to December 15 of a year far in the past. The counts looked like this: 119 348 353 409 515 559 572 634 722 779 830 1004 1029 1169 1345 1487 2096 That's a total of 13970 tickets closed by 17 techs. If you split it evenly, that's 821 each, or about 5.8%. The lowest tech…

My wife worked with a guy who closed a ticket about closing tickets. If you're measured purely on the basis of number of tickets closed, you can game the system. Replaced users mouse, ticket closed. Or, upgraded network software on 300 machines, ticket closed. If someone is doing twice as many tickets as the next guy, I'd assume he is doing a lot of BS work, not that he's twice as fast.
Post reply on HN