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

Busting the 10x software engineer myth

swarmia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 356 posts

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#171

Post by acdha »

coldtea wrote: post #90
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm getting at is if our 1x is defined by average or median, essentially. Of course without actual data it is impossible to say.

Abstractly it's nice to know. But practically does it really matter? Even if we knew the case, one can't just e.g. whip 0.4x into 1x, so a 2x remains a very valuable 2/0.4 jump.

> Even if we knew the case, one can't just e.g. whip 0.4x into 1x, so a 2x remains a very valuable 2/0.4 jump.

This is pure speculation, which is why actual data would be useful. Is a measured 0.4x performer that way for innate reasons or is that something which some combination of training and mentoring, better tools, streamlined environments, etc. can help with? — or is the way that's measured even valid? I've seen a few cases where someone got flack for being slow until wider perspective showed that they were the only one solving the customer's real problem because it turned out that what they were doing was more complicated than it looked and/or the other guys were “solving” it in ways that required lots of ongoing maintenance.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#172

Post by fassssst »

I think 0.1x (or even negative x) software engineers are more common. The ones that introduce bad bugs, don’t accept feedback, don’t communicate well with PM and design, always want to refactor things… they can take a whole team down.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#173

Post by beckingz »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #81
dijit wrote: post #3

I know "10x engineers" exist; some people are fakes and put forward things that look like they have high impact but are actually a bit shoddy. Some people like to be present and suck up. But some people really do just work hard, smart and have deep passion for what they're doing- and importantly: pride, which makes the quality of the content great too. Some of the best engineers I know "visit" bits of code or infrast…

Is it really that 10x performers exist, or that 0.4x performers are abundant so 2x performers look like 10x performers? I guess what I'm asking is if there is any actual data on this so we can look at actual statistics or if it is all just a meaningless blogspam topic.

The Survey cited in Peopleware says that it is a 10x difference between the best and the worst performers. The best performers were something like 2.5x the average performer, as measured by time to complete a specific coding task in the 70s.

Office environment was a factor in performance.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#174

Post by shantnutiwari »

johanneskanybal wrote: post #23

Very sf-type of term, is it still in use? From an eu perspective the idea to rely on some members of your team to be 10 times more productive than others seems like a terrible idea for anything longer than a 1 month sprint. That's not to say people's raw smartness, competence and experiences are the same just that a better focus would be growing the team as a whole.

> Very sf-type of term, is it still in use?

Yeah, I've never seen it outside the SF bubble.

Where everyone seems to think they are the 10x, and everyone around them is a dolt.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#175

Post by lixtra »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #165
bjourne wrote: post #97

This article is pure clickbait written to sell in this stupid Swarmia startup. :) 10x developers exist just like 10x musicians, 10x marathon runners, or 10x chess players exist. It may take a world-class musician a week to write a masterful symphony but it would take me way longer. Perhaps I'd never produce anything great so that musician would be infinitely better at it than me. Great chess players beat amateurs at…

I guess this all depends on your definition of 10x. It sounds like you are saying 10x the average person rather than 10x the average person who works in that field. I'm a 10x developer if we count non developers. I am not if we could people who work as developers. Likewise there are expert marathon runners who are 10X, or more, than the average human. But there are not marathon runners who run 10x faster than other p…

> But there are not marathon runners who run 10x faster than other professional marathon runners.

It’s true that they don’t run 10 times as fast, but the marathon runner that is 1% faster will finish 10x more races before the slower one (YMMV depending on stdev).

Similar in software development, picking a 1% better local solution often enough can make the global result 10x better due to the complexity of the systems.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#176

Post by Gupie »

thinkharderdev wrote: post #149
jmchuster wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're taking about is just output on a larger macro scale, then yes, hiring enough people will replace 10x engineers. But some things i think you won't be able to replace -- You won't be able to replace speed on short-term projects. Lots of people means lots of communication overhead, which really kills fast responsive speed. If you value time to answer, you'd prefer a small team of really smart people instead of…

There is a flip side to that as well I think. One 10x developer can be more productive than 10 developers, but often 10 10x developers cannot be as productive as 100 developers. Certain things just don't "scale out" with the sort of creative advantages that highly productive engineers use.

Overly complex code is more difficult to modify than elegant simple code. A 10x developer will produce simple elegant code. That is one reason why they are a 10x developer. Ten 10x developers will create a much more simple solution than 100 standard developers. Standard developers usually create a mess. That is what always happens, we have all seen it. So 10 10x will be much more productive than 100 standard developers.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#177

Post by marcus_holmes »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #163
smoldesu wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason DOOM was finished in 1997 was because John Carmack recognized himself as the 10x developer and started living in-office until the game was finished. Obviously it's important to not let silly titles distract you, but stepping up to the plate like this is how organizations get stuff done .

And while there’s nothing wrong with people choosing to do that, there’s absolutely everything wrong with organisations that expect it.

Yes!

This is how bad organisations get stuff done. Good organisations don't run into these problems in the first place because they listen to their staff and don't set arbitrary deadlines*

* I have no idea how arbitrary the deadline for Doom was. But I've seen so many devs burn themselves out meeting deadlines that were pulled out of a hat by managers because it gave them the illusion of control

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#178

Post by [deleted] »

dijit wrote: post #146
m12k wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flipside, I've met "10x engineers" who always prioritized working on highly visible and strategic new features, and excelled at shipping them as fast as possible, even if it meant racking up massive technical debt. By doing this, they effectively did produce 10x as much in the eyes of management, and got promoted and rewarded in kind. The technical debt they racked up then got paid by everyone else that had to…

> On the flipside, I've met "10x engineers" who always prioritized working on highly visible and strategic new features, and excelled at shipping them as fast as possible, even if it meant racking up massive technical debt. I start my comment with an intent to indicate that these people are not what is meant when people say 10x. (maybe it's what some people think of when lambasting "10x" developers). If you think you…

[deleted]

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#179

Post by tartoran »

m12k wrote: post #139
dijit wrote: post #3

I know "10x engineers" exist; some people are fakes and put forward things that look like they have high impact but are actually a bit shoddy. Some people like to be present and suck up. But some people really do just work hard, smart and have deep passion for what they're doing- and importantly: pride, which makes the quality of the content great too. Some of the best engineers I know "visit" bits of code or infrast…

On the flipside, I've met "10x engineers" who always prioritized working on highly visible and strategic new features, and excelled at shipping them as fast as possible, even if it meant racking up massive technical debt. By doing this, they effectively did produce 10x as much in the eyes of management, and got promoted and rewarded in kind. The technical debt they racked up then got paid by everyone else that had to…

That’s right, the mythical 10x-er who does greenfield work, uses the latest tech, who not only never maintains their masterpieces but moves on to other pastures causing other devs loss of productivity and captive to their mazes..
Post reply on HN