Live data from Hacker News

The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

a16z.com

51–60 of 111 posts

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#51
post #31

> As software becomes a high-impact, low-skill trade, we decouple the technical ability and experience needed to write tricky software from the ability to solve problems for people. It's one thing to know that capital secretly delights over the commoditization of labor. It's quite another to watch a16z gush so openly about a future where we can be tossed aside.

Great programmers move up the chain as well. If your skills are not being valued by your company as it is setup in a way that it needs only average engineers, you can move on and create your own company now. If you are a great engineer, then you are a walking capital by yourself. If somebody with an idea, and no skills, hires you, then it probably needs at least 300-500k (even for a smallish prototype) to make it hap…

> If you are a great engineer, you are the capital!

It only seems that way because engineering is currently the most capital-heavy part of bringing a softwarebusiness to market. Once that ceases to be the case (which may take a while, but it's the future SG was gushing about) then as long as there is a single scarce or mutually-exclusive commodity necessary for success its price will ratchet upwards until it is out of reach for most engineers (after risk-adjustment).

Pertinent example: the implosion of the indie app dev market that's been all over HN this past week.

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#52
This article sets up a a few interesting points, but stops at only one. Yes, the ever-increasing level of abstraction available in information technology enables less technically-specialized people to creatively utilize the tools available to them, and that's pretty amazing.

But the plumber analogy fails to capture the breadth of the tech world. What I would call equally exciting to the empowerment of less-technical developers is what highly technical "10x engineers," or whatever you want to call them, are enabled to do in a world of next-level abstractions.

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#53

> As software becomes a high-impact, low-skill trade, we decouple the technical ability and experience needed to write tricky software from the ability to solve problems for people. It's one thing to know that capital secretly delights over the commoditization of labor. It's quite another to watch a16z gush so openly about a future where we can be tossed aside.

Alternatively, a creator can now build a product with fewer people and doesn't need to raise capital. This trend is extremely empowering of labor.

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#54

This article is wildly off base, particularly when you look at the examples the article cites. WhatsApp was able to scale to so many users while keeping the engineering team small precisely because they hired great engineers who wrote an extremely efficient system in Erlang. (Does he think commodity coders know Erlang? Really!?) They heavily tuned their architecture and built efficient paradigms which kept developer…

If I remember correctly from a high scalability post about WhatsApp it was also on bare metal. So more complexity to manage then a simple AWS setup where you can tear up/down in seconds.

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#55
Well, yes, if we restrict our domain to the set of application types for which development can be commoditized, then development becomes a commodity.

Not all development is webapp and mobile app development, though, and some things, like actual engineering, just aren't things that can be commoditized (beyond a certain point).

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#56
This doesn't pass the sniff test. The demand for high-quality software continues to outstrip supply. Bad software is an imperfect-but-better-than-nothing substitute for good software, which is why so much of it gets written.

The problem here is that there's a sort of Gresham's law effect - bad software drives out good software by infection. Your technology stack is only as good as the worst component, and if you're operating at the level of indirection that Sam Gerstenzang suggests, that's a lot of software that you need to depend on, and your software can only be better than the software it depends at the cost of a lot of effort. Some component in your stack doesn't work the way you need it to? Well, suddenly you're either three layers down the stack trying to fix it, or you're writing a non-trivial piece of software higher up the stack to make up for the deficiencies of the lower level.

I'd also dispute Gerstenzang's basic premise that modern engineers need to know less than yesteryear's. 20 years ago, you could write an entire app in Visual Basic. It could integrate with a database, had a drag-and-drop GUI builder, was scriptable using a language that, for all of its many idiosyncrasies, was fairly easy to learn (and you could write plug-in components in C++ if you wanted to). A statically-compiled binary could be put in a floppy disk and would work on any computer running Windows, where it would look basically the same.

Modern front-end web code needs to navigate a Rube Goldberg machine of preprocessors and build pipelines that would have embarrassed a C developer from 1988, and incompatibilities with particular browsers, operating systems or form factors frequently cause simple tasks to take longer than expected. Because nearly every modern application is a distributed application in some sense, you need to understand concurrency and network protocols, and if you want to work on both the client and server components of your application, you probably need to know more than one programming language, or the subtle differences in the runtimes that your language has on client and server. And that's just fairly simple web applications!

WhatsApp was created by a small team, but that team needed to include skills in everything from Erlang to J2ME. That breadth of knowledge was what gave WhatsApp the key competitive advantage of being able to support almost every mobile device on the market, not just the latest generation of smartphones. You might be able to get a startup off the ground without engineering, but you won't be able to grow it much.

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#58
post #53

> As software becomes a high-impact, low-skill trade, we decouple the technical ability and experience needed to write tricky software from the ability to solve problems for people. It's one thing to know that capital secretly delights over the commoditization of labor. It's quite another to watch a16z gush so openly about a future where we can be tossed aside.

Alternatively, a creator can now build a product with fewer people and doesn't need to raise capital. This trend is extremely empowering of labor.

The history of every mature industry on planet Earth says otherwise.

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#59
This article is confusing two different things: engineer and the tools used by the engineers. It's not like the tools will ever substitute an engineer or exist one tool to rule all other tools or even one tool that do everything. What we have now better tools than before, which makes possible for few engineers to produce more than before. Examples from other jobs, graphic designers were not substituted by tools like Photoshop and InDesign, will they ever be? I don't think so - and that's by design, the tool is to easier the job, let the person concentrate where it makes more money, and not to substitute the person.

Re: The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

#60

> As software becomes a high-impact, low-skill trade, we decouple the technical ability and experience needed to write tricky software from the ability to solve problems for people. It's one thing to know that capital secretly delights over the commoditization of labor. It's quite another to watch a16z gush so openly about a future where we can be tossed aside.

It seems to me that with crowd-funding and big data, the people who have jobs picking winning companies out from a lineup will be obsolete before the engineers building the crowd-funding and big data platforms will be.
Post reply on HN