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

The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

hanselman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#51

Post by yogo »

wslh wrote: post #32
dexen wrote: post #26

After reading numerous posts on the subject of 10x software engineers, I reckon they fall mostly into two categories: - `I have worked with / seen code of such ones' (often examples follow) - `there were no such ones on any team I ever managed' , with OP falling into this category. Which is to say, the existence (or absence) of 10x software engineers appears to be party recognition problem -- managers do not want to…

First, is important to search the truth. I think we are discussing if 1 + 1 is equal to 2 or not. 10X engineers exist (I would say that 100X ones too). If you found even one it is enough to probe this fact. You can see similar distributions with scientists or other professionals.

With so much mention of 10x on HN I'm surprised Grant Cardone isn't on here or at tech conferences selling his book. That brings me to my point, a car salesman selling 10 times as much cars as other salesmen is clearly 10x, how do you determine that for a developer? To me it seems like there are so many variables that such a distinction would always be incorrect.

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#52

Post by pnathan »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #27
dexen wrote: post #26

After reading numerous posts on the subject of 10x software engineers, I reckon they fall mostly into two categories: - `I have worked with / seen code of such ones' (often examples follow) - `there were no such ones on any team I ever managed' , with OP falling into this category. Which is to say, the existence (or absence) of 10x software engineers appears to be party recognition problem -- managers do not want to…

There also seems to be some ideological motivation for claiming rockstars don't exist. The existence of rockstars provides fodder for individualist ideologies. Many people are more collectivist, so therefore feel the need to dispute the existence of rockstars. This is a little bit evident here - you need a rockstar team, with diversity . It's far more evident in the last post on this same topic. (Not quite a dupe, bu…

+1. When you're concerned with ensuring every single developer can read, understand, and rewrite your code, you don't have a place for the best; because the average and worst devs won't grasp what the best does.

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#53

Post by 001sky »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #50
dexen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have somehow re-defined software engineer performance as a mere function of company bottom-line, and ended up measuring performance of individual software developers by proxy of long-term company performance. There are two problems with it. First, not all software engineers actually do commercially work on commercial software -- as a quick example, Con Kolivas, who is an anaesthesiologist by day and kernel hacker…

> You have somehow re-defined software engineer performance as a mere function of company bottom-line, Absolutely. While everything you say is true, building the right thing is as important as building the thing right. If you are working for a company, and what you do doesn't benefit that company, you might as well go home.

There is a difference between linear extrapolation and the butterfly effect. That seems to be the part that many miss. Startups (by necessity) show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Mature companies (by design) do not.

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#54

Post by sambeau »

benjaminwootton wrote: post #4

He's empirically wrong because I've worked with 10x developers. A few years ago I worked with a guy there whose output, productivity, and smart solutions combined with godlike C++ coding ability made him probably 100x more effective than anyone else in the place. This was in the front office at Goldman Sachs, so the rest of us weren't completely useless. He was just in a different league though. I have also worked wi…

I can confirm. I have also worked with a number of programmers who have been 5x as productive as an average programmer and one who was easily 10x, possibly more.

My old manager handed Mr 10x a company chequebook and said "write your own salary in there… just don't leave". He left. He wanted challenging work more than he wanted money.

These people exist in all fields: maths, art, music, literature, sport. It is amazing (and somewhat dispiriting) when you meet one, however working with one is, in my experience, only inspiring.

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#55

Post by _delirium »

derleth wrote: post #8
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's empirically wrong because I've worked with 10x developers. I believe you meant "He's anecdotally wrong because I've worked with 10x developers." To be empirically wrong, you'd have to contradict it with some empirical rather than anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is empirical evidence. It's just not very convincing because it doesn't come with any information about how common experiences like those are, or what confounding factors might be at play. Now, in this case, confounding factors probably aren't a problem, but if 10x developers are one in a million or one in a billion, an anecdote about how someone, somewhere actually met one once isn't very helpful…

Validity of the observation is a potential confounding factor. There are clearly people who impress their coworkers to the extent that those coworkers believe the person is a 10x-average programmer. That's what this kind of report establishes. But is the judgment of those coworkers correct? Is the person actually 10x more productive in any kind of rigorous, verifiable sense? Generally these reports don't come with enough evidence to establish that.

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#56

Post by [deleted] »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #27
dexen wrote: post #26

After reading numerous posts on the subject of 10x software engineers, I reckon they fall mostly into two categories: - `I have worked with / seen code of such ones' (often examples follow) - `there were no such ones on any team I ever managed' , with OP falling into this category. Which is to say, the existence (or absence) of 10x software engineers appears to be party recognition problem -- managers do not want to…

There also seems to be some ideological motivation for claiming rockstars don't exist. The existence of rockstars provides fodder for individualist ideologies. Many people are more collectivist, so therefore feel the need to dispute the existence of rockstars. This is a little bit evident here - you need a rockstar team, with diversity . It's far more evident in the last post on this same topic. (Not quite a dupe, bu…

[deleted]

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#57

Post by crazygringo »

frostmatthew wrote: post #45

Each time something like this is posted to HN many are quick to come to the defense of the 10x engineer as not a myth. Since so many HNers are founders/CEOs/CTOs/whatever I wonder how many of them making comments that 10x engineers are "responsible for most of team's output" are actually paying their "rockstar" engineers ten times average. The best baseball players make much more than the average player, the star of…

Because it's notoriously difficult to measure programmer productivity, companies are generally going to be incredibly hesitant to offer "rockstar" programmers salaries that match their capabilities. There's no box office take or album sales or stadium-filling metrics to rely on.

"Rockstar" programmers generally need to go and (co-)found their own companies to make their multiples of millions. The great difficulty is that being a rockstar programmer doesn't always make you a good product/business person, and the best programming can't save a crappy business. But people like Gates and Zuckerberg are the ones who make it happen.

But if one day we find the holy grail of accurately measuring programmer productivity... (though I don't think that's possible...)

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#58

Post by ef4 »

The author is exactly backwards on the issue of team scaling.

Even if I grant his premise that 10x engineers don't exist (which I don't), let's just presume 2x engineers exist. So is a team of four 2x engineers equivalent to a team of 8 1x engineers? No -- the smaller team is vastly more effective, because of the n^2 communication problem.

This is why strong individual performers are so valuable. Give me my top pick of 10 developers, and we will ship the product at least as fast as any organization of any size. Bigger organizations can still work on more separate projects in parallel, but they won't out-develop us on any particular one.

Re: The Myth of the Rockstar Programmer

#59

Post by eitland »

pnathan wrote: post #52
yummyfajitas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There also seems to be some ideological motivation for claiming rockstars don't exist. The existence of rockstars provides fodder for individualist ideologies. Many people are more collectivist, so therefore feel the need to dispute the existence of rockstars. This is a little bit evident here - you need a rockstar team, with diversity . It's far more evident in the last post on this same topic. (Not quite a dupe, bu…

+1. When you're concerned with ensuring every single developer can read, understand, and rewrite your code, you don't have a place for the best; because the average and worst devs won't grasp what the best does.

Often it is quite the opposite: when the best is finished the result is smaller and much more readable.

I am allowed to be opinionated, I have seen both forms in well paid consultant jobs.

Post reply on HN