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

Super-star programmers

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 124 posts

Re: Super-star programmers

#101

Post by jdlshore »

gruseom wrote: post #96
jdlshore wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hardly "singling out" the 10x claim. If you knew me, you would know that I readily criticize programming studies [1]. At any rate, the prevalence of poor science in software development is no reason to be silent about this particular case of poor science. I'll admit to being guilty of using anecdotes to describe my experiences with software development. (That's not quite the same as folklore, but whatever.) You w…

Fair enough. Is there any programming study that you think holds up as science?

Microsoft (Research?) published some stuff in the last year or two that looked really interesting. I don't have a link at the moment and I'm on my way out the door, unfortunately. But I remember thinking that it had promise because it drew conclusions from a huge base of data from actual Microsoft developers working on long-term projects.

Another paper I like is Little's report on data from projects at Landmark Graphics [1]. It's not a controlled study, and shouldn't be treated like one, but it also looks at a large base of data from real projects.

My biggest complaint about academic papers is that they're often conducted with students, using practices out of context, working on projects of trivial size and depth. I like both of the above not because they're perfect, but because they get beyond those problems.

[1] http://www.toddlittleweb.com/Papers/Little%20Cone%20of%20Unc...

Re: Super-star programmers

#102

Post by dalke »

dkersten wrote: post #44
jdlshore wrote: post #29

I'm disappointed to see the 10x programmer meme hit a publication like the Economist. There's no scientific evidence of 10x differences in programmer productivity. To quote Laurent Bossavit [1], who's investigated the studies people like McConnell use: "How strong is the support conferred to the 10x claim by the best-reputed list of references, for a reader persistent enough to follow the chain of citations back to p…

From what I heard the 10x meme came from a study back in the 60's where they timed something like ten programmers programming on punch cards for a couple of hours. Now, I didn't check the facts behind this myself, but if thats the case its hardly scientifically rigorous and hardly relevant at all today.

What you heard is incorrect. See http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2011/01/09... for an incomplete list of some of the research which have been done, and which conclude that a 5x-25x variation exists.

Re: Super-star programmers

#103

Post by dalke »

Shengster wrote: post #2

It seems the general consensus is that a great programmer can write better quality code in less time than others. This requires a high level of aptitude and experience (which comes with practice). However, I feel the ability to write quality code quickly is just one facet of a great programmer's skillset. Often overlooked is the ability to communicate and collaborate with others effectively--which is just as importan…

Here's what McConnell writes on the topic, in chapter 30 of "Making Software." (The rest of this comment comes from McConnell.)

Some people have objected to the "10x" label, making an argument like "We had a super programmer on our team once. He was so obnoxious he alienated the whole team, and overall productivity was actually better without him.

In general, any practical definition of a real 10x programmer has to include the effect the programmer has on the rest of the team. I have known super programmers who were obnoxious. More often, a supposed super programmer with an obnoxious personality was really an average programmer, or worse than average, using an obnoxious personality to hide a lack of performance. The true super programmers I've worked with have generally also been cooperative team players, although of course there are always exceptions."

Re: Super-star programmers

#104

Post by saraid216 »

larrys wrote: post #77
saraid216 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a more compelling domain I think this gets to the heart of your bias. "Bug tracking and PM" is not compelling to you , but I suspect Joel and his hires find it a lot more fascinating than you do.

""Bug tracking and PM" is not compelling to you" Not to answer someone else but I think what the parent means is that it's not original, unique, or greatly improving on whatever is already out there. (Is it?) I mean it's kind of meat and potatoes addressing a problem that has been addressed and maybe doing it better. Let me state that while I can program I am certainly not a programmer. But from my perspective it see…

What would you say about people working on search algorithms at Google? Is that prestigious enough for you to call it world class? Because that seems like an addressed problem and maybe doing it only a little better.

> Using an analogy if you want to be in law enforcement are you going to work for the local big city police department or try to work for the secret service or the FBI?

Do tell me what makes the FBI or the Secret Service more "compelling", "original", or "unique" than a "local big city police department". Because I see law enforcement, full stop. Not Swanky Law Enforcement versus Ghetto Law Enforcement.

Re: Super-star programmers

#105

Post by excuse-me »

to3m wrote: post #64
excuse-me wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next time you see someone ask for it - simply reply with your request for a $M salary. After all what does a rockstar get ?

I have to say, I was more hoping for the groupies and gak myself. A million-dollar salary from a programming role is so unrealistic.

I suppose it depends on what kind of rock star.

Words never heard backstage = "That's the banjo players Ferrari", "That supermodel is sleeping with the drummer"

Re: Super-star programmers

#106

Post by alayne »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #51
drharris wrote: post #6

Forgive potential ignorance here, but people often quote Joel Spolsky as saying things like: "...the trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they strive, they will still produce something mediocre." What really genius-level things has Fog Creek done? I remember demoing FogBugz, and it was marginally better than its competitors, but it was far from a…

http://www.fogcreek.com/fogbugz/Downloads/KamensPaper.pdf To quote The Spolsk himself: "This paper is the ultimate rebuttal to those grumpy people who email me, barely able to conceal their disgust, saying, 'why do you need to hire such smart people to work on bug tracking software?'"

Is Bayesian filtering supposed to be impressive? This paper is more a symptom of somewhat smart people being bored.

Re: Super-star programmers

#108

Post by jere »

forgotAgain wrote: post #4

As I reached about half way through the article I got bored and my mind starting having stray thoughts - god this is long. Isn't it ironic that a superstar programmer would have been bored by now and stopped reading. - momentarily after that, I guess I just admitted that I'm not s superstar programmer. - momentarily after that, I wonder if there are writers who can transmit ten times as much information using one ten…

You might be interested in The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains http://www.amazon.com/The-Shallows-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/...

I'm reading it right now and, if nothing else, can totally relate to "I can't concentrate on things very well anymore" feeling.

Re: Super-star programmers

#109

Post by will_work4tears »

Articles like this only depress me, making me realize that I'm a mere web developer and not even a REAL programmer, and in the realm of web developers probably not even remarkable. Which makes me probably LESS than mediocre as a programmer.

So much for moving up in the world.

Re: Super-star programmers

#110

Post by jdlshore »

dalke wrote: post #100
jdlshore wrote: post #29

I'm disappointed to see the 10x programmer meme hit a publication like the Economist. There's no scientific evidence of 10x differences in programmer productivity. To quote Laurent Bossavit [1], who's investigated the studies people like McConnell use: "How strong is the support conferred to the 10x claim by the best-reputed list of references, for a reader persistent enough to follow the chain of citations back to p…

I haven't read Bossavit's book. I have read McConnell's writings. Chapter 30 of "Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It" is by him, and edited by Andy Oram and Greg Wilson. The point of the book was to collect scientific evidence. I know Greg, and his high standards, so I strongly doubt that McConnell's evidence of weak. I'm immediately suspicious of the statement you quoted: "Not a single one of t…

Bossavit's book comes after McConnell's reply, and goes into more depth than the essay McConnell is replying to. Personally, I found the book more convincing. And having read what Bossavit had to go through to verify McConnell's references, I'm not convinced Greg Wilson did the same.

Rather than try to defend someone else's words, though, I'll just direct you to the book. You're going into a lot of detail critiquing quotes from an end-of-chapter summary, which isn't fair to Bossavit's work. I hope you'll read the book, because I'd like to hear your critique of the full work.

Post reply on HN