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

Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

beza1e1.tuxen.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#31

Post by Spooky23 »

adekok wrote: post #25
danieltillett wrote: post #13

Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? We are all biased when deciding what is average as we use those around us to decide what is average - if we are surrounded by great programmers then our average is much higher than if we are surrounded by poor programmers. The other complication is the intellectual energy hurdle that each problem brings. Some problems can only be solved by a small perce…

> Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? Industry average is 2,000 lines of code per programmer per year. I've regularly produced 10x to 40x that amount. Others I've talked to have done the same. The difference between "low volume" and "high volume" programmers is usually pretty stark. My experience is that it's not so much experience as problem solving skills. If you have a good understandi…

I've observed the same thing in different contexts, but IMO that's supervisory negligence that allowed an employee to go rogue.

The story you're telling isn't a bad programmer -- he's a liar! He probably copied the file into the test suite and watched it fail, but it allowed him to report progress to the PM. (Covering for the time spent fucking around on the Internet)

That clown needs adult supervision.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#32

Post by TillE »

adekok wrote: post #20
illumen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 12 years, if you study & practice an extra 2 hours per day you will have studied the equivalent of 365 days for 24 hours per day, or 1095 days at 8 hours per day. That's about a whole bachelors degree worth of study. That's not even including normal work study and practice. Now, if you get 10 fresh out of school people who also did not study growing up VS someone who has been doing this for 12 years, and who was…

> Completely agree on this. I don't believe in innate talent. A little critical thinking shows there must be innate talent. Most human abilities / behaviors / properties vary around a central mean. Some people are short, some are tall. Some are smart, some... less so. Some are naturally good at something, others are naturally bad at it. As an anecdotal data point, my daughter could stand on my outstretched hand prett…

I'm not a Gladwell fan, but that article presents a weak argument against a claim not even made.

> The rule tells us, a mere 10,000 hours of dedicated practice in your particular field is sufficient to bring out the best in you.

No! That's not at all what Gladwell was saying. They even quote him:

> “The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise,” writes Gladwell in Outliers.

Necessary, not sufficient.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#33

Post by TeMPOraL »

tomp wrote: post #28
TeMPOraL wrote: post #24

I like this theory, seems to fit my experience and intuition much more than the "innate ability" kinds. But then again, I'm a weird kind of programmer. I'm a 10X+ programmer when working on my own stuff, or some challenge, basically for fun. Start paying me or expecting me to deliver, and my productivity drops to 0.1X. I've been unsuccessfully trying to figure that out for years and fix my work productivity, with lit…

I agree. I'm assuming there are many 10X programmers; unfortunately, there are not many 10X problems (or at least, not commercially viable ones - for example, I'm developing a programming language, but I don't see any chance of it being a commercial success, so I only do it in my free time).

In my case I doubt it's just about the type of a problem. I feel it's as much about the context. I apologize for the vagueness, those are all results of years of introspection of my work performance.

Let's bring up recent web projects I've been doing. I'm working on an API-first system in PHP. Quite a chore, and most of the time I feel like running on 0.1X. Recently I had an opportunity to do a similar, smaller project in anything I liked - so I went with Common Lisp for like 5X productivity. Compare it with 10X I get when working on silly stuff of similar complexity (say, IRC bot that pretends to be a human).

I'm not sure how this works. Sometimes I deeply care (like in that 5X project, I cared because I want to carve out a space at my work where I can do Lisp instead of PHP). Sometimes I don't. The more of an obligation something is, the less I can get myself to care about doing it.

There are times when I write more code for that IRC bot in an hour on a bus than in 5 days of work.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#34

Post by jonpress »

I have worked with a lot of people in a number of different companies (including a few startups) and I can think of a couple of engineers who really stood out.

When discussing engineering problems with these individuals, I never had to explain twice - Often, I didn't even need to finish my explanation and they already knew the optimal solution for that problem.

These people are impressive to work with but I think it often comes down to experience more than intelligence (but they are usually very intelligent too). When an engineer has mastered a particular set of tools/languages/frameworks, they can come up with more optimal solutions and they can do it faster.

A deep understanding of tools and techniques allows developers to look beyond the most obvious 'naive' solution to find the one which is the most suitable (using existing tools to do as much of the heavy lifting as possible).

Also, when a developer cares deeply about a particular project, they will invest more time reading about relevant technologies in their own time.

When it comes to learning new tools, most engineers are content to 'learn as they go' - That's OK, but it means that they are not as well equipped when it comes to finding that optimal solution.

I think engineers should take time to familiarize themselves with tools REALLY WELL before they start using them, especially if such a tool/framework/technology will impact the project for many years in the future.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#35

Post by namplaa »

qznc wrote: post #11
gedrap wrote: post #2

The whole 10X thing (which sounds like some superhero myth or whatever) is much simpler then we sometimes want to believe. The work we do is not that unique. While often it will not be identical, but will share a lot in common. We learn what worked in the past in similar situation, and apply it successfully in the future. That's it. Bottom line, experience matters a lot.

If experience is all that matters than the industry could be a lot better if we would not let the 40+ software developers disappear to management. Instead they should get payed better to keep them?

I've found some companies who recruit from the trenches are led from the front, meaning the management promotes people who are skilled to management positions.

Others promote the weak developers.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#36

Post by gloverkcn »

peter12355 wrote: post #21
olavgg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I believe almost everyone who is reading hacker news is a 10x programmer. It's really quite simple, the average IT person, especially in "enterprise" has very limited knowledge, but they do know some programming. Either in Cobol, Basic, ASP or Excel. Their job is to solve problems, but they're not really interested in their work. A job is a job, not a hobby. They have never heard about system automation, sti…

I wish it would be like that but my experience is that even average IT people are quite interested in what they do. (I'm still a student so my sample size is not that big).

I find it's heavily dependent on the company. Companies that see IT as core to a successful business tend to attract 10x programmers. If you are still in school then my advice is to learn to interview a company while you are interviewing for a job. Find the place that's going to push you more, regardless of pay.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#37

Post by bluedino »

alkonaut wrote: post #29

A sports analogy appeared in yesterday's HN thread on this topic: the difference between an average runner and the fastest man alive is less than 50%. The counter argument here is that the measurable variable here isn't really the skill of the programmer but the success of the company (or equivalent). You only have to be best by a small margin to win. If you count wins between me and Usain Bolt he would be more than…

>> the difference between an average runner and the fastest man alive is less than 50%.

So that means the average man can run the 100m in 15 seconds?

It's a much better comparison to stretch that distance out. How fast (slow?) does your average human take to complete a marathon?

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#38

Post by fsloth »

adekok wrote: post #25
danieltillett wrote: post #13

Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? We are all biased when deciding what is average as we use those around us to decide what is average - if we are surrounded by great programmers then our average is much higher than if we are surrounded by poor programmers. The other complication is the intellectual energy hurdle that each problem brings. Some problems can only be solved by a small perce…

> Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? Industry average is 2,000 lines of code per programmer per year. I've regularly produced 10x to 40x that amount. Others I've talked to have done the same. The difference between "low volume" and "high volume" programmers is usually pretty stark. My experience is that it's not so much experience as problem solving skills. If you have a good understandi…

The LOC/month amount depends heavily on the problem at hand.

With new code and familiar domain I'd say I can hammer in a few thousand LOC a week.

With a horrible legacy stack I've spent weeks on work that in the end resulted in a single new function call at a particular location.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#39

Post by bluedino »

adekok wrote: post #25
danieltillett wrote: post #13

Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? We are all biased when deciding what is average as we use those around us to decide what is average - if we are surrounded by great programmers then our average is much higher than if we are surrounded by poor programmers. The other complication is the intellectual energy hurdle that each problem brings. Some problems can only be solved by a small perce…

> Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? Industry average is 2,000 lines of code per programmer per year. I've regularly produced 10x to 40x that amount. Others I've talked to have done the same. The difference between "low volume" and "high volume" programmers is usually pretty stark. My experience is that it's not so much experience as problem solving skills. If you have a good understandi…

Lines of code isn't a good measuring stick.

Re: Another Theory to Explain 10X Programmers

#40

Post by danieltillett »

adekok wrote: post #25
danieltillett wrote: post #13

Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? We are all biased when deciding what is average as we use those around us to decide what is average - if we are surrounded by great programmers then our average is much higher than if we are surrounded by poor programmers. The other complication is the intellectual energy hurdle that each problem brings. Some problems can only be solved by a small perce…

> Do we really know what the average programmer actually produces? Industry average is 2,000 lines of code per programmer per year. I've regularly produced 10x to 40x that amount. Others I've talked to have done the same. The difference between "low volume" and "high volume" programmers is usually pretty stark. My experience is that it's not so much experience as problem solving skills. If you have a good understandi…

Wow 2000 lines of code per year - that is around 8 lines a day! I consider myself a very average developer and I would write 20x this. Maybe I am not so average after all :)
Post reply on HN