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

10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

blog.fogcreek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#61

Post by strommen »

vkjv wrote: post #2

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…

Agree 100%. Joel had a great essay on this back in the day called "Hitting the High Notes" [1]

Perhaps a better way to look at this is to assume the average is 3X, and there exist developers at X, 10X, 0X, -X, and everywhere in between. And this productivity depends massively on circumstances like the size and makeup of the team, the established codebase, and the technical difficulty of the work.

I've worked with several individuals that are absolutely a 10x for a technically-difficult project where they are leading the architecture, but range from -1X to 0X as a regular contributor to a large project.

1. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#62

Post by RogerL »

Delmania wrote: post #33
jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. 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 "10…

"If they are a league above other average programmers, what's an acceptable description that you'd use?" Dedicated. These individuals have mastered their domain; they have spent years learning and practicing. They have built knowledge and skills that can be transferred to other domains. I think people need to stop focusing on the label, and start focusing on the process. I don't believe a person is born a 10X program…

Do you have any evidence for this? We pretty much get Gaussian distributions whenever we try to measure inherent skills. I happily stipulate the measures are difficult and flawed, but still, Gaussian distributions with a large variance is just how it plays out. And, it correlates with everything I have seen in reality.

Explain MVC to a 5 engineers with equal experience and language skills, and 1 might end up finishing your sentences and extrapolating to other domains, while musing about limitations and gotchas, another couple will just sort of follow along, and perhaps one fails to understand and keeps asking you to repeat yourself and explain in different ways. Engineer 1 will go back to their desk and spin out reams of productive code, whereas #5 will make a mess of it and create technical debt. #5 will put many more hours into it than #1, for whom this is effortlessly assimulated. People have differing abilities.

I am really good at programming. I am moved deeply by music, but my interpretations when I play are somewhat pedestrian and/or copied (I play classical guitar & piano). I don't even grok ballet. I don't get how the movements correspond to the music, I don't understand why person A is rated better than B, and so on. It's an alien language, and I could study for 10 years and it still would be. Yes, the greats (in performance and appreciation) worked harder than me at it, but even if I worked that hard I'd still be a ballet doofus (citation needed).

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#63

Post by emodendroket »

eloff wrote: post #53
jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. 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 "10…

Where do these guys who deny 10x engineers work? I work in a company with ten devs. There's about a factor of five between the productivity of the top guys vs the bottom guys. That's after the worst performers have been let go. It's impossible for me to deny that some programmers are just really that much better at their trade than others.

Anecdotal, subjective reports. Real rigorous; I can see why someone should find this convincing.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#64

Post by 32bitkid »

Delmania wrote: post #33
jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. 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 "10…

"If they are a league above other average programmers, what's an acceptable description that you'd use?" Dedicated. These individuals have mastered their domain; they have spent years learning and practicing. They have built knowledge and skills that can be transferred to other domains. I think people need to stop focusing on the label, and start focusing on the process. I don't believe a person is born a 10X program…

I wonder how much of the "Fear to 10x" mentality comes from the illusion that software development is not a team sport; that if I go off in my hole, work hard enough, think enough then I can achieve anything.

I think the supposition that all that is required is "discipline" is very difficult to accept for anyone who has ever seriously played competitive sports...

As an athlete you end up realizing pretty early that in spite of similar levels of training, practice and dedication, you just don't have the talent (raw or cultivated) for certain levels of performance. It's just not going to happen. For me, I _maybe_ could have made a Division III or Division II team, but there was no way I was going to get accepted at the Division I-level, not to mention Pro-level. It just wasn't going to happen.

But what is perhaps more distressing, is that you it's relatively easy to recognize the individuals that do. The ones that have that the "10x factor". Its the girl or guy that you get benched for so they can go in. They one that the team rallies behind to win. Because they _can_ win the game; they can make the shot, they can focus through the exhaustion, they can make the "play", see the big picture. It's a thing...

I think thats the real distinguishing characteristic of 10X ______ (fill in the blank): they have the ability, within a group of skilled peers, to _create almost unilaterally_. While the rest of us, require the support of the team to accomplish pretty much anything in that environment.

And its easy to ignore/forget about the vast majority; which haven't cultivated the skill/craft to perform any task beyond basic.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#65

Post by dahart »

eloff wrote: post #53
jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. 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 "10…

Where do these guys who deny 10x engineers work? I work in a company with ten devs. There's about a factor of five between the productivity of the top guys vs the bottom guys. That's after the worst performers have been let go. It's impossible for me to deny that some programmers are just really that much better at their trade than others.

Nobody denied it. Laurent went looking for evidence (to reinforce it, as a matter of fact) and found there isn't any strong evidence to back up the number 10, he found out that it's mostly a narrative that has been repeated over the decades. He reiterates that he sees a wide variety of programmer performance, and that lots of people are confusing what he's saying, that there isn't evidence, for saying that all programmers are roughly even in productivity.

How do you measure productivity on your team? How do you arrive at the factor of five?

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#66

Post by RogerL »

vonmoltke wrote: post #49
RogerL wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It is a handy catch phrase that describes a real phenomenon. I tend to think in terms of variance. Programmer A is 3 standard deviations 'better' than programmer B (again, no mathematical rigor implied!!!). Think of it in this way. Most of us are smart people, and learned relativity in high school or college. Those that didn't, could have. It ain't that hard . But how many could have discovered relativity at…

The problem is that there may be a domain you can drop Jessica and Jacob into where they become equivalent, or even flip-flop. My problem with the myth is the part that posits there are a bunch of programmers you can drop on anything and have them be more productive than the average. They exist, but they are very rare, just like Einstein-caliber scientists are very rare. In fact, you connected "10X" with "six-sigma";…

Why is that a problem? Maybe Jacob should be doing enterprise development, or maybe he should be a chef. We aren't saying Jessica is a 10x human, just that she is 10x at the assignments that she has been given, or made on her own. When I assign projects I think about a person's ability. Not just what they know, but what I want them to know in the future, how quickly they might get things done, how much technical debt they will either create or retire, and so on. It's inexact, but roughly, yes, 10x people exist.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#67

Post by emodendroket »

vkjv wrote: post #2

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…

Well, sure. I suppose the canonical example is Ron Jeffries flailing around for several blog posts trying to write a sudoku solver without coming anywhere near achieving it. I still don't think it's helpful to uncritically repeat the stuff about "10X developers," though.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#69

Post by shawn-furyan »

msandford wrote: post #40

I think it's hilarious that Fog Creek is devoting effort to debunking a large part of the core of Fog Creek; namely that there is such a thing as a 5x or 10x programmer. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html His theory is that salaries are distributed fairly normally so the top of the heap might only demand 2x the salary of an average, and only 4x the salary of the bottom. But they might be 10x as ski…

Some points toward why this is not hilarious or even unexpected:

* They aren't really devoting effort, not beyond setting up a skype recording and transcribing the result. The effort comes entirely from the author, Laurent Bossavit, they are interviewing. * The claim is against the existence of rigorous evidence that supports the idea that 10x programmers are around in sufficient quantity to be a practical consideration for people involved in the creation of software. Bossavit explicitly states that he's not saying that 10x programmers don't exist at all. He's not even saying that they aren't reasonably common. Just that there's not rigorous evidence that demonstrates the phenomenon, even though he's found many citations that misleadingly imply the existence of such evidence. * Joel's claims in the article are anecdotal, and don't appear to be meant as a rigorous proof, but as a feeling extrapolated from his personal experience. So there's really not a lot of disagreement between what Joel's claims and Bossavit's. * Even if there had been a direct disagreement, why should that preclude a Fog Creek blog from exploring ideas that are incompatible with one of the multitudes of ideas that their very opinionated founder has published? Fog Creek is very concerned with attracting developers as far to the right of the bell curve as they can manage. Forbidding the exploration of thoughts independent of those the founder has expressed is extremely counterproductive to that goal, since highly competent people tend to have their own ideas about how to do things. * Finally, even if we were to treat Fog Creek and Joel Spoelsky as the same entity, we should expect such thought leaders to entertain and grapple with thoughts that seem to be contradictory to their past opinions, especially when they come with a more thorough examination of the available evidence. Being a 'flip flopper' is only a disadvantage in politics. In reality humans have to make determinations under uncertainty, and therefore do not always get things right. It's a sign of intellectual maturity to be able to revise one's previously held/stated beliefs.

Post reply on HN