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

Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

techthingsaround.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#71

Post by CyberDildonics »

BeetleB wrote: post #42

> “In software, the difference between the average software developer and the best is 50:1; Maybe even 100:1.” Steve Jobs > If you’re a software engineer, you would probably agree with what Steve Jobs said. I am and I don't. I've yet to see even a 10x engineer. I've seen people who are more than 10x within a very narrow domain , but when you include the whole system and all their responsibilities, no one comes close…

> Amdahl's Law is very relevant here.

This is a gross misunderstanding of both software and amdahl's law.

Amdahl's law just states that the serial parts of a program stays the same as more cores are used for the parallel parts of a program. This also means that the percentage of time the serial part takes becomes larger as it stays the same and the overall running time goes down. It is not an incredibly mind blowing or insightful observation.

It is also assumes certain aspects can't be split up.

Multiple programmers means more communication (synchronization). If anything amdahl's law is an argument that having less but better programmers is much more effective than having more average programmers.

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#72

Post by crazygringo »

Trasmatta wrote: post #67
crazygringo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate what you're saying... but I don't think that's the generally accepted meaning of 10x. You're just describing a good, responsible, effective programmer. Skills like good documentation or secure code are things anyone can learn from training and experience. And the qualities you're describing are also very much a function of what the company requires/expects/incentivizes, rather than what any individual ch…

I'm pretty dubious about the idea that this type of engineer actually exists.

They definitely do, I've worked with them.

As far as I can tell, it's mainly the ability to hold a lot more "connections" in their head at any one time, and extreme logical rigor.

So that instead of reasoning about just the function they're writing, they're always naturally reasoning about the entire framework it fits into, and so they don't tend to produce bugs where the function doesn't fit in right, where it has weird side effects, where it duplicates code elsewhere, where it will create unforeseen technical debt, etc.

And then their logic is just watertight, always. They don't make all the kinds of basic design and logic errors other programmers tend to repeatedly make.

They sit down, crank out 1,000 lines in a couple of hours, try to compile/run, fix bugs around mismatched braces and misspelled variables, and it just works.

In contrast with someone else who takes a couple days to get it even kind of working, then winds up having to rewrite large parts of it twice because they'd made basic design errors in the first place.

But I still stand by my original point that most programming jobs don't require you to write a tight 1,000 lines often. Most work is plumbing, bugfixes, CRUD, etc. where the connections/logic skills don't really pay off in a big way.

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#73

Post by BeetleB »

m463 wrote: post #63
BeetleB wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Come on, there are some people who are brilliant and effective. Sure, but can I replace 50 average engineers with one of them, and get the same output? Never.

That's not how it works. You and a bunch of your friends could probably do more code reviews, but could you all give a better presentation than steve jobs?

It sounds like you're agreeing with me:

> I've seen people who are more than 10x within a very narrow domain, but when you include the whole system and all their responsibilities, no one comes close to 10x.

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#74

Post by BeetleB »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #71
BeetleB wrote: post #42

> “In software, the difference between the average software developer and the best is 50:1; Maybe even 100:1.” Steve Jobs > If you’re a software engineer, you would probably agree with what Steve Jobs said. I am and I don't. I've yet to see even a 10x engineer. I've seen people who are more than 10x within a very narrow domain , but when you include the whole system and all their responsibilities, no one comes close…

> Amdahl's Law is very relevant here. This is a gross misunderstanding of both software and amdahl's law. Amdahl's law just states that the serial parts of a program stays the same as more cores are used for the parallel parts of a program. This also means that the percentage of time the serial part takes becomes larger as it stays the same and the overall running time goes down. It is not an incredibly mind blowing…

By Amdahl's law I was referring to things like:

- Communicating with customers

- Writing documentation

- Testing (be it automated or manual)

- Other stuff that may seem bureaucratic but nevertheless are essential (paperwork, tending to CI, tending to HW, etc).

This stuff (or at least some of it) is harder to scale. You can scale up the coding part quite a bit, but the overall process of SW development is held back by the above. You're not going to find someone who is 10x when it comes to talking to customers. Often managers will find the so-called 10x programmer and assign him to duties to maximize output, and have someone else do the work above. But he's still not a 10x overall, as he is simply not doing the work of other developers. That's why I said "within a very narrow domain".

Now if you can get a 10x developer who can scale all aspects of the job, then sure - pay him/her 10x.

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#75

Post by caseysoftware »

knowtheworld wrote: post #43
caseysoftware wrote: post #23

They are, it's called stock options. The challenge is that to successfully cash out, ALL the pieces of the company have to work together and effectively to some degree. It's the single best demonstration that company/product success is a team effort.

I thought most stock options are worth like x% of your base salary. They usually can boost the total salary on a certain level but not a crazy amount?

Yes, that's how they're issued.

But if they're still valued that years later, you've done something wrong. (You as in the team.)

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#76

Post by djmips »

knipster wrote: post #62

The author suggest that star athletes are paid for their exceptional athletic ability. Star athletes are paid for their ability to fill a stadium and or sell advertising/media rights. Part of their value is their celebrity and name/likeness. They are more equivocal to entertainers in this context. Of course, ability matters, because winning teams are celebrated! Software developers do not bring this value to their or…

Not really true, with few exceptions you have to deliver on the field of play as a star athlete to maintain a high salary. The marketing creates some variance within the category but the top paid athletes are the top performing athletes otherwise why would they even retire?

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#77

Post by djmips »

jldugger wrote: post #45
rossriley wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp for instance sold for $19 Billion and when it was acquired had an engineering team of just 35.

And I think Instagram had like 12.

Says more about the complexity (or lack thereof) of the product than the capabilities of those 12.

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#78

Post by francisl »

because the 15x programmer that is slowed down to 1.3x because the 50x added 80x of technical debt will leave the company. So the company will only have 50x that leave as soon as there is a need to fix their own code.

To put a real value on the work of a heterogeneous pool of developers is way harder than it looks. One will only value the contribution of what 'he/she' values as important. But the quality of a software come from the strength of many that focus on different things. Even the person who is not really good, but is the only one that bring a 'team spirit/team work' brings value to a team.

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#79

Post by didi987 »

When Microsoft got into compilers, they were giving $1m signing bonuses. [1] There's also the concept of acqui-hire. On the other side there is price-fixing [2]

1. Mr. Gross quit in September but didn't join Microsoft until after a three-month sabbatical to plan his wedding, Borland said. According to the suit, Microsoft also offered Mr. Hejlsberg a $1.5 million signing bonus, a base salary of $150,000 to $200,000 and options for 75,000 shares of Microsoft stock

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Re: Why don't companies pay 50x engineers 50x?

#80

Post by jldugger »

djmips wrote: post #77
jldugger wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I think Instagram had like 12.

Says more about the complexity (or lack thereof) of the product than the capabilities of those 12.

I mean, it was a mobile first app, with a substantial server component and infinite scroll, at a time where very few people were iOS experts.
Post reply on HN