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

10x (engineer, context) pairs

benkuhn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#61

Post by KenoFischer »

I'm not sure I really "got distracted" by building those tools. Building the tools was kind of the point for me and the class was simply a good way to focus the tools on a concrete effort. I acknowledge that it ended up occasionally getting me in trouble when forward progress on class projects was stalled on seemingly unrelated tooling and I got an appropriate admonition about it at the end of the year from the professor, but on the other hand, doing the class this way was way more impactful long-term. A lot of that tooling is still in active use across the Julia ecosystem, while the actual code it was used for at the time never got touched again after the end of the semester.

That's pretty much my general philosophy when it comes to writing software though. Whenever possible, figure out what tooling would have made the task easy and then build that and solve the problem simultaneously. You're probably gonna have to throw away the latter code, but at least the next time it'll be easier, because you now have the tooling. Even better if you happen to be in a position like mine where you already build tools for others, because that way other people will end up benefiting too.

Anyway, does it still occasionally get me in trouble? Yes. I not infrequently end up in situations where the software is essentially done, but I have to write a compiler pass to make it actually work, because I decided to write the code in a way that I thought it should be written, rather than a way that would be performant out of the box. But hey, at least I'm aware of it (https://twitter.com/KenoFischer/status/1529814861693259777) ;).

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#62

Post by dgb23 »

EliRivers wrote: post #15

A 2nd edition of Peopleware summarises it; the 10x programmer is not a myth, but it's comparing the best to the worst; NOT best to median. It's also not about programming specifically; it's simply a common distribution in many metrics of performance. The rule of thumb Peopleware states is that you can rely on the best outperforming the worst by a factor of 10, and you can rely on the best outperforming the median by…

Can someone explain why this has been downvoted? It seems like a genuine insight backed by a study.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#64

Post by FunnyBadger »

Dealing with this right now actually. We (a start-up) got bought. The product was split into two teams - we originally did BOTH HW and SW. Their HW team was pretty good so we let them do the HW and we did the SW. The problem can from the HW actually being HW + FW (a form of SW) and turns out they are mediocre at best FW and digital design and that's become a problem (we have to hook into what they are doing).

We (the original startup crew) finally figured out what the problem was: their commitment to ANYTHING (our HW project but also every other product they've ever worked on) is exactly the same as how most people treat school and homework, namely, how much can get away with NOT thinking and doing about it and still get a passing grade.

They can't be "fixed" because that's how deep the problem is: they've been trained for this attitude since they were children and they wouldn't know how to break out if their lives depended on it; they are not dumb or low-IQ. But they've been trained to achieve the lowest-common-denominator of anything they design or engineer.

This has never been how any of us have approached anything in life. For us, it's:

1. Do the best job regardless of what you could get away with

2. Focus on the big picture and little picture integration

3. Know who actually makes the product a success: the customer and the market

Significantly IMO I went to elite schools on merit rather than legacy/money while my co-founder was home-schooled and didn't actually finish his BS but he has more drive and commitment than 99 out of 100 BS EE or CS degree holders I've ever met or worked with.

Most people mouth the words but either don't actually know what they mean or do not mean what they are saying when they say them. This may not be sufficient but I think it's a necessary difference between normie engineers and 10x engineers.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#65

Post by klankbrouwerij »

kleinsch wrote: post #2

I feel like we discuss this once a week/month and it always breaks down to the same things bc of the number 10. - Yes, some engs write code faster than others. 10x seems really high, so therefore 10x engs don't exist. - Yes, some engs are more productive / pick better problems to solve / force multiply their teammates, but 10x seems pretty high, so 10x engs don't exist. If we hadn't anchored on 10, we wouldn't be dis…

10x seems really high? 10x is just twice as fast

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#66

Post by gamblor956 »

The flipside of the 10x engineer is the 1/10 engineer, generally "codemonkeys" that learned to "program" at a bootcamp.

Their skills are limited to the particular framework and tools they used at their bootcamp, and they have less ability to learn new tools and languages than the average designer or marketing person. Despite their poor skills, 1/10 engineers generally think that they are the best, smartest, and most productive programmers at whatever company is unfortunate/dumb enough to employ them. Mostly because they take so much time to do everything, and they think that time spent is equivalent to productivity. But their code is so brittle, it can only handle limited scenarios and tends to fall apart under load. The 1/10 engineers frequently get into arguments related to tech issues into which they have no knowledge or insight, because they assume that being able to code makes them omniscient gods (this afflictions also affects many 1x programmers as well).

1/10 engineers are the reason so many LA tech companies (my employer included) no longer hire bootcamp graduates.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#67

Post by someweirdperson »

It is just a matter of the frame of reference. In an organization with a large number of 0.1x developers, skilled developers may look like 10x.

The 0.1x ones don't really understand the problem they are working on, nor can they write even a few lines of coherent code, often with only a minimalistic understanding of the language they are using. Spotting them is easy: Watching them use the editor of their choice to work on code feels like watching a toddler learning to walk.

Different organizations happen to hire different kind of people. For some organizations hiring skilled developers is a matter of luck. The skilled ones they manage to hire are outliers, easily perceived as 10x. Other organization manage to hire mostly skilled developers and PIP the rest. In that kind of environment 10x does not exist.

That's the perfect base for an argument. Depending on the individuals background it is very obvious that 10x exists / does not exist.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#68

Post by asdffdsa »

khazhoux wrote: post #37

I contend that the only reason their existence is debated or controversial, is because the concept hurts the pride of those who like to think of themselves as best-of-the-best engineers, but are afraid they're really not. I've worked with 10x engineers maybe 2-3 times in 20 years. One single-handedly wrote 85% of and another wrote most of the internal libraries at . They would regularly take tasks that most people wo…

The one idea I don't like surrounding 10x engineers is the rhetoric by startups or companies around hiring is "we're only looking for rockstars and 10x engineers", which naturally denigrates the majority of (1x) engineers. This launches a broader discussion of whether success in business manifests by scaling up or scaling out, and I tend to be a proponent of Locke than Hobbes.

So the controversial nature comes from the implication that most of the workforce (1x engineers like myself) are worthless and not worth hiring, and also the hubris of thinking a 1x company can hire and retain a/only 10x engineers (these same startups/companies usually offer a 1x or less compensation package). If you think I'm wrong, then fire 90% of your engineers and see where that gets you; that would be an interesting result if productivity increased!

I think this is separate from mere jealousy or denial; 10x engineers definitely do exist and I look up to them for inspiration and example.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#69

Post by ethanwillis »

drBonkers wrote: post #56
readme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the major advantage is much more rooted in general problem solving ability familiarity might be able to give you 1-2x edge but 10x+ comes from raw problem solving skill and research aptitude

How do you build this raw, generically-applicable problem solving skill? Everything I come across ends up being frameworks for probables specific to a discipline.

Not everything is acquirable.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#70

Post by [deleted] »

deltaonefour wrote: post #43
convolvatron wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a pretty weak statement. even given such a correlation, what is the scale? how sensitive does programming skill need to be related to IQ to make a 10x engineer sufficiently probable given the population. the real problem though is that IQ and 'programming ability' aren't really well defined.

IQ is well defined. Programming ability is not. A sign of low IQ is requiring everything to be well defined and scientifically validated in order to move forward in analyzing a problem. Science is slow and has huge limitations. Formally defining complex concepts like "what is life" is also incredibly tedious and so complex that it's often nearly impossible. Do you want to formally define "programming ability" before…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN