I do not doubt that there are 10/ programmers. Programmers that are just lazy slackers.
10x (engineer, context) pairs
71–80 of 132 posts
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#72Yeah, there are plenty of fake 10x engineers out there, or temporary 10x-ers who are only doing well because of their working environment. But I have worked with a few people who were clear 10x engineers. Everything they worked on they did better and faster and cleaner. They could often solve problems that other skilled people couldn't even get started on. Yes, they usually picked important and impactful things to wo…
There are main personality traits that are associated with being not nice: 1. Being a know-it-all 2. Unwilling to admit mistakes 3. Not collaborative 4. Not sharing knowledge 5. Unwilling to be coached There are many more. These “not nice” traits are the same ones that will lead to stunting your growth as a software engineer.
Except people are incredibly bad judges of character. Naming the traits is the easiest part. Realizing these traits aren't binary and not as easy to judge in the open as they are in a vacuum, not so much. Meanwhile, the people in charge are all to eager to pass "not a team player" judgments over something far more complex than "not nice".
This also needs a fair reminder, people suck at communicating.
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#73Earlier 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.
I think it can come from natural curiosity, strong fundamentals, and experience. Search for problems that don't have canned answers and try to solve them.
I think anyone can improve if they're willing to put in the time, though of course natural ability does help.
Think about learning to write a compiler for a programming language. You'd have to learn: - Computer architecture - Assembly language - Caching - Recursion and Parsing - Type theory - Translations - Performance testing
Or attempt to write your own database. That would cover at least: - File Systems - Transaction semantics - Algorithms
I think tackling problems like this would help a great deal. Or just look for areas where you don't know how to do something, and work on them.
Things like: - How deeply do you know your favorite programming language? - How easily can you setup a Linux server to host a web application? - Are you an expert at your editor? - Can you write a usable GUI, either for the web or a phone, etc.
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#74I have no idea why this is so contentious in the engineering discipline like it’s some unique question.
When you were in school, weren’t their students just far more capable than others? When you look at sports, aren’t there just players far more capable than everyone else (any pro player vs any non pro)? When you look at art, aren’t there just artists so much better than others (professional artists vs a hobbyist)? Salespersons? Dog trainers? Snowboarders? Etc
Every discipline has a bell curve of skill, and there are engineers who are just significantly better than others and it’s not even close (like any profession). There are limits, but software engineering isn’t anything special here where the idea of outliers warrants this much controversy.
Yes there are “10x engineers”, obviously, because every domain has skill levels spanning magnitudes. It seems like the only thing preventing recognition of this fact is ego (and to be clear, I don’t think I’m a 10x engineer at all)
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#75This is very subjective. ( obviously ) You can go 10x speed in a direction that is pointless. Not all work equates to value. The best product is the simplest that makes the most money. Duct tape and hacks make money. There is zero value in going beyond that. Over-engineering is an epidemic. “cool” means nothing. Engineering is a tool for a job, it’s not a product in itself. If your internal parser fails when you see a comment in code with bad grammar and you strive to fix it, that is you being neurotic not useful. Engineers love to build kingdoms in the details that nobody gives a fuck about.
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#76The concept of the "10x engineer" has vastly outlived its usefulness. Remember, it originally was a response to clueless non-technical management who thought that programmers were completely fungible—the type of thinking that led to early waves of offshoring based on headcount costs, and a willful ignorance that the details that technical staff spend their time working on actually matter.
But once you get past the pointy-hairs, all this framing does is set up a falsely quantitative comparison between broad swathes of engineers whose work can not and should not be compared in this way. Is it really any surprise that a meme created for the bean counters is going to draw ire and vitriol from passionate, diligent and opinionated software professionals?
There is absolutely no point in the general debate about what "10x engineer" is (or whether it really exists). Yes, people have vastly different skills. Yes, there are things which some engineers can do which others could never do. Yes, there are Dunning-Kruger cases without the chops, humility or awareness to acknowledge this. Trying to quantify and strictly define those things though? Pointless.
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#77I 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 t…
> The one idea I don't like about 10x engineers is the rhetoric by startups or companies around hiring is "we're only looking for rockstars and 10x engineers"
Completely agree. That's recruiting/marketing bullshit. They're trying to appeal to people's egos, but probably have the opposite effect, as you say.
Also, I doubt one could actually recognize these top-tier engineers, at least not in today's standard interviews. But... I did actually job-interview a 10x'er for a startup years ago. It wasn't a standard interview but rather a long, casual lunch (he was a friend-of-a-friend). After two hours of talking about engineering/coding/etc, I started to suspect: "Huh, I think this guy might be a better than me." What I didn't realize is just how much better than me he would turn out to be -- it was amazing and a joy to learn from him.
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#78I never understood why this is controversial. I'd say the majority of engineers I've worked with have been 10x engineers. Maybe I've just been incredibly lucky with the teams I've ended up on.
10x compared to what?
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#79It benefits nobody to be a 10x engineer unless they are making 10x salary. In fact, once you have the job, the absolute best play is to do as little as possible and not get fired. We are businesses ourselves, don’t forget that. You work for money, and once you have the money, there is no reason to ever give more value than you are getting.
Want more money? Study for an interview and then return to your minimal effort process. Believing that you need to give more is the company winning. Treat yourself like a shrewd startup business.
Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs
#80Yeah, there are plenty of fake 10x engineers out there, or temporary 10x-ers who are only doing well because of their working environment. But I have worked with a few people who were clear 10x engineers. Everything they worked on they did better and faster and cleaner. They could often solve problems that other skilled people couldn't even get started on. Yes, they usually picked important and impactful things to wo…
That's highschool thought process. Adult thought process is to give your best, for your best.