Busting the 10x software engineer myth • Hacker News Board

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#211

Post by toast0 » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

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…

> People leave. If your 10x (or 3x or 5x) engineer quits: are you really going to hire 3,5 or 10 people to replace them? Unlikely. And even if you do, institutional knowledge is lost.

When I left my last job, part of what I was doing was replaced by a team that built up to 5 engineers last I checked. They're doing it more intensely (although, I don't think with better results), and they've got to have a lot more communication than when I did it (I was trusted to do cowboy deploys to an isolated system, they've got to deal with code reviews and just making each other aware of what they're doing because 5 people in a small system means overlapping work). And, I did a bunch of other stuff too which AFAIK didn't really get picked up, but hopefully they've been lucky and not had weird TLS problems or other 'select is broken' experiences lately.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#212

Post by Jensson » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

beckingz wrote: post #173

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Peopleware is 30 years old though. Back then very few decided to become programmers. Today when everyone flocks to the field chasing money and you have several orders of magnitude more programmers the ratio could be very different.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#213

Post by eurasiantiger » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:00 PM UTC

cyberpunkdyst wrote: post #186

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…

Author here. There definitely are people, who perform better than others, even when the environment is not built to favor them and hinder others from performing well. If we believe that the talent within a field follows the power law, as suggested by this study ( http://www.hermanaguinis.com/PPsych2012.pdf ) it means that only 20% people in the field are high-perfomers, and something like less than 5% exceptionally h…

”The truly high-performing people, who are passionate about their craft are very likely to move to companies that are at the at the top of XYZ, where XYZ is the topic within software engineering that they're especially passionate about, pay well, etc.”

Is there a source for this claim?

How likely are they to move exactly, and what motivates the non-movers to stay?

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#214

Post by ggambetta » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

gurkendoktor wrote: post #127

ggambetta wrote: post #120

"10x engineers" definitely do exist. Anyone who doesn't believe in 10x engineers just hasn't met one yet. I've had the pleasure of working with two 10x engineers. One of them is a problem-solving and execution machine. I could understand what he did, and I think that I could have done the same, only taking 10x longer. The other one... the other one isn't just a "faster me". His brain works on a qualitatively differen…

> Anyone who doesn't believe in 10x engineers just hasn't met one yet. Or they are working in a small and well-funded company that only employs ~10x engineers, and they have never met a (to them) 0.1x engineer.

Fair enough.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#215

Post by goldcd » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:04 PM UTC

BMFXX wrote: post #56

goldcd wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked with a few developers who are great - people who get bored of waiting so just build it themselves one evening whilst everybody's arguing over funding/recruiting the team we thought was needed. Within a team, I think 'greatness' comes in all manner of different forms, all of which are needed. The person who holds the whole software model in their head, and can rattle off the precise changes required to imp…

Oof, sadly this sounds like me... It's hard to delegate, and even harder to trust that it's done correctly. I know this will be my undoing someday, it also drives me insane because it puts extra pressure on myself... Any suggestions? (Short of let people do it).

I'm not a developer, so maybe not the best person to ask.

What seems to work is where areas of the product are assigned to specific teams - the overly-attached dev can at least see what's happening, provide guidance, without having to do the work, point to wiki that needs updating etc. Over time they'll build trust and can back away a bit.

What doesn't work is if work is given to a different team who just do their own thing and the 'parent dev' only finds what's happened to their baby on the commit/demo. Even if they've done a great job, it ruffles feathers.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#216

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:04 PM UTC

rory wrote: post #203

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #109

I see a variation on this article, several times a year. I can't speak for other cultures, but the US has a fundamental mindset that all but worships "exceptionalism." We like mavericks, rule-benders, and exceptionally talented individuals. Being attractive, and having a winning [public] persona is also very helpful. Sometimes, good actors can use attractiveness and persona to cover up for a lack of accomplishment an…

> The US would concentrate on high performers, often to the detriment of their peers. That's very interesting. This is anecdotally very contrary to my experience in middle-class public school, and my sister's experience as a teacher in a lower-income school. Was the doc shot pre-NCLB? Is it simply a matter of variance across a large country, and my viewpoint is biased?

I don't remember. It was a long time ago. In my experience, this is exactly what happened, in my schools (I attended US public and private schools, after 5th grade).

I saw it from both perspectives. I was very smart, and did well, when I applied myself. I could also be a nightmare slacker.

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#217

Post by _huayra_ » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:05 PM UTC

latch wrote: post #135

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 totally agree, but I think you can use examples closer to home. Carmack could build a video games which is 100x across a number of metrics (quality, cost, time to deliver) than I could. Still too far? Pick your field, there'll be experts. You can get even closer to home. After 20 year, I really feel like I'm at least 10x developer across a number of metrics (e.g., value to my employer, amount of complexity I can ma…

I always use competitive coding as an example. There are children in Ukraine / India / Russia / wherever who I'm sure will always be able to whoop my ass in these competitive coding things. I try really hard and get nowhere, and when I look at their submissions it's some inscrutable / clever thing that solves the problem orders of magnitude faster than I could ever do.

The only way through this all is to recognize that it's okay to feel stupid, even if it's pretty much all the time. I'd rather feel stupid and challenge myself than sit around bored (e.g. with Monolith Maintenance).

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#218

Post by deltree7 » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:06 PM UTC

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…

Claude Shannon, Dennis Ritchie, Vitalik Buterin, Jeff Dean are all 10x programmers. Let's not pretend they dont exist

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#219

Post by deltree7 » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:09 PM UTC

hawk_ wrote: post #6

> Wrote hard-to-understand procedural code to 5000-line files. Did not actively share knowledge with his peers. The author seems to mean prima donna, not a 10x engineer and then goes on to destroy that strawman. Actively sharing knowledge, mentoring etc... and code and architectural simplicity are a given for someone who's 10x productive. Most of the costs are in maintenance not the initial delivery and a 10xer's out…

Yeah, great programmers are also great documenters and also process-oriented and detailed

Dennis Ritchie, Vitalik Buterin, Jeff Dean exist

Re: Busting the 10x software engineer myth

#220

Post by octorian » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

khalilravanna wrote: post #195

As I get older, and maybe because I worked at a company whose product is “talent optimization”, I think a lot of the “10x” thing is just a function engagement and passion. That is to say it’s not entirely skill or “intelligence”. You could take the best programmer but if you point them at a project they don’t give a crap about they’ll phone it in. Point them at something they’re passionate about and they’ll have absu…

This. Very much this.

I've probably fallen into the "10x" camp myself at certain points in my career, and it was absolutely due to these factors. I should also add that having a general expertise of the problem domain and environment are enormous boosters as well.

Of course the moment I'm considered "fungible" and moved to a project I'm not passionate about at all, I'm pretty sure this evaporates entirely.