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

10x Engineer

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 186 posts

Re: 10x Engineer

#151

Post by chii »

craigyk wrote: post #79
JimboOmega wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that always got me is that even if they do exist, the candidate selection methods are, at best, a very unreliable way to identify them. Still, it really fed into the "only hire the absolute best" mythos that has spread in countless other harmful ways. Consider the aphorism "A players hire A players, B players hire C players". The general message of all of it has always been: "You must hire the very best, ev…

Yes, "only hire the best" hurts everyone. What they should have been doing is hiring more and firing more. At least you'd have a better idea of how well a person does in the context of your environment.

i suppose this is what a probation period is.

Re: 10x Engineer

#152

Post by chii »

arjie wrote: post #73
craigyk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YES. What the 10X myth hurt most is probably hiring practices.

If you're not a 10x and assuming one exists, do you really have the expertise to tell that he is 10x?

yes, if you are reasonably trained enough in the field. I m sure i am not a 10x, but i have met those who are.

Re: 10x Engineer

#153

Post by chii »

altero wrote: post #138

Lets put it other way. Why someone should produce 10x more work, even if she/he could? Salary would be probably only 20% higher. And there is a huge pile of disadvantages (no holidays, extra support...). It is also career limiting move as someone becomes irreplaceable and can not get promoted.

> becomes irreplaceable and can not get promoted.

if a company does this, the employee should threaten to quit. Either they end up really quitting (good riddance - its probably a bad place!), or they realize your value, and pay you extra. No need for "promotion" (to another role/job).

I don't get why pay grade is tied to promotion.

Re: 10x Engineer

#154

Post by chii »

btilly wrote: post #126
jacobian wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, exactly, is one supposed to cite unpublished research?

The authors of the book were the ones who did the research for their consultancy. But you could easily cite Peopleware itself for the research.

tbh, qualitative research like this has no predictive power. It's just a (few) case studies. The variables that are in these case studies cannot be controlled for, nor tested and/or predicted. All it gives is some example anecdotes. Unfortunately, a lot of social science research end up like this, because of the complexity of the problem. Thus, i wouldn't cite peopleware as research, but as anecdotal examples, or case studies.

Re: 10x Engineer

#155

Post by chii »

iyulaev wrote: post #112

Have you ever taken compilers, operating systems, or some other project-heavy class? If so I'm pretty sure you've noticed several individuals completing a project with ease while the rest of the class, working in teams, struggles with. You can visit any decent CS program, any semester, and see this happen. It's no myth.

It might be a failure of the teacher - some concepts are difficult to grasp for some people due to the way their brains think. Some people think in different shapes, different methods. If the method your brain happens to like is the one that is being taught, then you might do reasonably well, by pure chance. If your brain's method didn't fit with the method being taught, you might not learn so well, and thus struggle.

This is evident even with something as simple as counting numbers - see this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UMk... , and that's just the concept of counting.

Re: 10x Engineer

#156

Post by chii »

silverbax88 wrote: post #69
com2kid wrote: post #60

I have known developers who, given a moderately complex programming task, will complete it within a reasonable amount of time. The code will be correct with no more than the expected bugs, and the design will be OK as a stand alone piece of code. The design will not be ingenious. It will not take other parts of the system into account. It will not have simple tweaks done in preparation of future design change request…

This is a valid thought, but I would piggyback on your comments and add that there are also engineers who put so much thought into their code - usually with the goal of eventual design expansion or reuse - that their code becomes over-engineered to the point that it, too, causes loss of overhead.

There could be two explanations - one is that the engineer who "foresaw" the future requirement just got lucky. The other possible explanation is that they really had a black art in deciding what's needed, and what's not. And black art takes time, and experience, as well as some level of intuition (some might say its heuristic - but heuristic is just shortcuts for lots of gathered experience).

Re: 10x Engineer

#157

Post by chii »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #134
tdees40 wrote: post #49

I think the free market mostly answers this question. According to indeed.com, the average software engineer salary is $91K. So obviously a company (assuming they could properly identify them) would pay $910K/year to a 10x programmer. Are there people out there making that for pure coding (i.e. not management)? Maybe, but it seems doubtful. I would think that generally 99.9999% of programmers make less than $400K if…

So obviously a company (assuming they could properly identify them) would pay $910K/year to a 10x programmer. The 10x-100x engineers tend to have names like Carmack and Torvalds. So, yes, they tend to get what they're worth, in the end.

is Torvalds earning 900k/year? i dont know, but i have doubts that he is.

But using salary is a wrong metric, because a 100x programmer would be founding their own company, and the value they gain is sometimes worth way more than 100x the average salary had they remained a salaried employee.

Re: 10x Engineer

#158

Post by DennisP »

waps wrote: post #102
gvr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This resonated with me. If the programming tasks are somewhat mechanical/procedural, I am not sure that an exceptional engineer can create 10x as much value as a quite good one. I've never seen it. What I've seen several times are engineers that are able to tackle problems that require so much creativity or skill that giving them to a less qualified engineer would most likely be a waste of everyone's time. In instanc…

I've worked at a lot of places and I clearly see it. It isn't very hard being a "10x" engineer if you look at the average programmer profile : Arrive at 9:30, start out with 30 minutes at the coffee machine. They get mad if you discuss work at this point, or god forbid, talk about interesting algorithms or the like. They expect to be told exactly what to do, or they won't even sit down. If you don't give them an exac…

When I'm on a new project, I also goof off for a few days at first, sometimes up to a week. Then I crunch out a lot of code fast.

I don't really mean to do it that way, and I usually feel guilty during that first week. But apparently my subconscious brain is sorting things out. I try to work and it all just seems too hard and confusing. I make little attempts to start and they just seem wrong. And then one day everything suddenly clears up and it's all obvious.

Re: 10x Engineer

#159

Post by joecorcoran »

saltyknuckles wrote: post #123

Off topic, I think its nice to see a pretty girl in the industry. Just saying.

The writer's appearance has nothing to do with this conversation. Also, given the amount of writing this particular writer has done on the topic of sexism in the industry, I'm going to assume this is some straight up attempt at trolling/derailing. Next time you feel the urge to "just say" something like this, maybe don't bother.

Re: 10x Engineer

#160

Post by FatalBaboon »

I think it's hard to measure productivity differences, especially in terms of 'x' (times), but it's definitely not constant.

However when it comes to whether they exist or not, here's an anecdote:

I was working for a TV channel and a piece of software needed to be 'actualized' (made over). By the time the other programmers told me the specs, over the office space, and started debating how long many days it should take, I was done (so roughly 1h).

Another point they make is that a group of people can generate compounded productivity. I live the exact opposite. Right now I'm sitting in an office with friendly people, and I roll my thumbs in boredom, but at night I work 1h for select clients and do more than in a week at my day job.

The only problem is loneliness. I hardly ever met anyone who enjoys multiple subjects (maths/physics/software/networks/biology/literature and capital management for me mostly), in fact I mostly receive jealousy disguised as mockery. Heck, I learned not to talk about seemingly arcane languages (Racket, LUA and the like) otherwise I'm cataloged and have to fight ridiculous prejudices. I found the best solution is to appear dumb.

Discrepancy between expectation of programmer productivity and the reality of one programmer can be very deceiving.

Post reply on HN