11–20 of 84 posts
I think like a lot of myths, there is a kernel of truth in the 10x programmer myth. The fact is, some problems are hard. Some problems are beyond the grasp of some developers. Even given unlimited time an individual may not ever accomplish the goal. I can certainly think of problem sets where that is true of myself. In those specific circumstances, that person can be considered a "10x programmer" when compared with a…
I believe not only in 10X programmers, but in 1000X programmers. I work with a senior lead developer who has decades of experience, but asks for help with the most trivial issues (like, how an overridden method would behave and how to call the parent class implementation.) I also firmly believe copy-pasting should be disabled on sites like Stack Overflow.
If these are the kind of problems that you're experiencing then I think you need to find a more challenging environment where you're the worst developer in the team.
Once you defined a measurement people could study for it. Someone who has memorized a gzip function is going to make a compressor 100x better than I am going to from scratch.
My guess is that it is because no two software projects are alike. Differences stemming from differing technology stacks, to domains or people skills, it is practically impossible to generalize anything across them.
Unless we all standardize on a one true way of software engineering, such folklores will continue to exists and there will be a dearth in repeatable conclusions.
PS: However, I do agree with Laurent that we can work towards aggregating numbers from several real software projects than rely on unsubstantiated folklore.
I can agree with the specific observation that there is no consensus on concrete quantifiable data to prove "10x" with mathematical rigor.
Ok, let's set aside "10x" because many previous discussions about it have shown it to be a distasteful description to some. For those who do not believe in the "10x programmer", how do you feel about programmers such as John Carmack (Doom, Oculus)[1], Fabrice Bellard (ffmpeg, pi algorithm)[2], Linus Torvalds (Linux, Git), TJ Holowaychuk (node.js projects)?
If they are a league above other average programmers, what's an acceptable description that you'd use?
To me, the "10x programmer" was always a snappy rhetorical label and I was fine with it that way. I never sought a mathematical proof of the statement.
Also, I'm hiring. ;)
I think like a lot of myths, there is a kernel of truth in the 10x programmer myth. The fact is, some problems are hard. Some problems are beyond the grasp of some developers. Even given unlimited time an individual may not ever accomplish the goal. I can certainly think of problem sets where that is true of myself. In those specific circumstances, that person can be considered a "10x programmer" when compared with a…
It's a given that some people are more productive than others. They are faster typists, or they can architect a system of similar quality faster, or they can just write good code faster. But remember the idea of 10x came from studies of similarly experienced programmers. And supposedly, the order of magnitude comes from actual data, although I've never been able to see it.
For most trivial problems, or for a given domain, I think it's easier to say one programmer is qualitatively better than another. But that may change if the domain or code base changes, and in my experience as the problems you're solving get more and more complex, it becomes impossible (or at best just boils down to who you think can crank out a POC faster, which is itself probably a specific domain of programming).
I just have trouble accepting the argument that one person is literally, quantitatively, empirically ten times the programmer as someone else. Maybe that makes me one of the 1x's :)
He doesn't say that the 10x programmer is a myth. Just that there isn't academic research that proves it to be true, which hardly means that it's wrong.
In my experience, there are 10x programmers out there. I've known a couple in my 20 professional years who exceeded that.
The fact that there isn't research proving it only tells me that I don't know distribution of that kind of talent, not that it completely doesn't exist.
You could say similar things about the notion of "debunking" the exponential cost of defects.
I believe not only in 10X programmers, but in 1000X programmers. I work with a senior lead developer who has decades of experience, but asks for help with the most trivial issues (like, how an overridden method would behave and how to call the parent class implementation.) I also firmly believe copy-pasting should be disabled on sites like Stack Overflow.
I think like a lot of myths, there is a kernel of truth in the 10x programmer myth. The fact is, some problems are hard. Some problems are beyond the grasp of some developers. Even given unlimited time an individual may not ever accomplish the goal. I can certainly think of problem sets where that is true of myself. In those specific circumstances, that person can be considered a "10x programmer" when compared with a…