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

10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

blog.fogcreek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#71

Post by dean »

jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. I can agree with the specific observation that there is no consensus on concrete quantifiable data to prove "10x" with mathematical rigor. Ok, let's set aside "10…

"10x" is a very specific, concrete statement about programmer productivity. And when people use it, they take it as a literal statement. And they apply it across the board. They think a "10x" programmer can actually write any code 10 times faster than an average programmer. But nobody can even quantify what programmer productivity is, so concrete statements like "10x" are misleading.

Even in this thread. Saying John Cormack is a "10x" programmer because he wrote Doom seems silly. (No offence to John Cormack.) There are lots of games out there. Why Doom? Or is it that anyone who wrote a game is a "10x" programmer. Or Linus Torvalds, why does writing Git make you a better programmer than writing Subversion? And what is "productivity" when writing code for yourself, versus writing code for your employer?

Einstein was not a "10x" scientist. He was a genius. The only problem is that there aren't many Einsteins out there. To make it your goal to only hire the Einsteins of the world, or to try to figure out how to 'make' more Einsteins, is short-sighted for an employer when there so many good, but non-genius programmers out there. But if that is your goal, at least be honest and say you are looking for geniuses.

The term "10x" is a literal measure of productivity. It defines the rate of output per unit of input. And that is why it is a myth.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#72

Post by eloff »

emodendroket wrote: post #63
eloff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do these guys who deny 10x engineers work? I work in a company with ten devs. There's about a factor of five between the productivity of the top guys vs the bottom guys. That's after the worst performers have been let go. It's impossible for me to deny that some programmers are just really that much better at their trade than others.

Anecdotal, subjective reports. Real rigorous; I can see why someone should find this convincing.

You must work in a really sad place.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#73

Post by vorg »

eloff wrote: post #53
jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. I can agree with the specific observation that there is no consensus on concrete quantifiable data to prove "10x" with mathematical rigor. Ok, let's set aside "10…

Where do these guys who deny 10x engineers work? I work in a company with ten devs. There's about a factor of five between the productivity of the top guys vs the bottom guys. That's after the worst performers have been let go. It's impossible for me to deny that some programmers are just really that much better at their trade than others.

> That's after the worst performers have been let go

Better to look at the situation including such bad performers...

It's often difficult for 3x programmers to make it at first because the 1x programmers will often gang up on the 3x programmer to protect their own jobs, although the behavior is often unspoken about between them. Many places will thus hire 3x programmers in bulk as a separate team, but many -0.5x programmers will slip in as well. A group of such 3x programmers will often put one of their own number to watch over, say, four of the -0.5x programmers, who will thus appear to be a 1x programmer, 3 + (4 * -0.5) == 1. 10x programmers can be groomed from a 3x programmer over time, but it's difficult for a business to pull off because the other 3x programmers will gang up on them, similarly fearful for their own jobs. And only big Silicon Valley names can hire 10x programmers in bulk.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#74

Post by eloff »

dahart wrote: post #65
eloff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do these guys who deny 10x engineers work? I work in a company with ten devs. There's about a factor of five between the productivity of the top guys vs the bottom guys. That's after the worst performers have been let go. It's impossible for me to deny that some programmers are just really that much better at their trade than others.

Nobody denied it. Laurent went looking for evidence (to reinforce it, as a matter of fact) and found there isn't any strong evidence to back up the number 10, he found out that it's mostly a narrative that has been repeated over the decades. He reiterates that he sees a wide variety of programmer performance, and that lots of people are confusing what he's saying, that there isn't evidence, for saying that all progra…

Well the number ten has obvious origins. Thanks to evolution we have ten fingers that we like to use to count with. I don't think many people believe it's based on some rigorous data.

A lot of people comment on HN that there are no 10x engineers, which I find strange. How can you work in this industry and not be convinced of the huge gradient in productivity?

We measure productivity with #bugs, #points of features, etc. It's pretty crude, but better than lines of code. It really doesn't tell the whole story though, because most of what makes a 10x engineer is not solving problems faster, but solving the right problem in the first place.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#75

Post by Delmania »

jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. I can agree with the specific observation that there is no consensus on concrete quantifiable data to prove "10x" with mathematical rigor. Ok, let's set aside "10…

In response to the response to my first comment, a lot of what is missing from these discussions is an understanding of how the brain acquires knowledge and builds skills. I recommend https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn/ as a good starting point.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#76

Post by sterlingw »

Delmania wrote: post #75
jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. I can agree with the specific observation that there is no consensus on concrete quantifiable data to prove "10x" with mathematical rigor. Ok, let's set aside "10…

In response to the response to my first comment, a lot of what is missing from these discussions is an understanding of how the brain acquires knowledge and builds skills. I recommend https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn/ as a good starting point.

I highly recommend this course.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#77

Post by olavk »

jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. I can agree with the specific observation that there is no consensus on concrete quantifiable data to prove "10x" with mathematical rigor. Ok, let's set aside "10…

Nobody would deny that there exist both amazing programmers and really crapper programmers. The thing is, without any hard data this information is pretty useless. How is productivity distributed among developers? Is 1/10 of developers 10x productive compared to the average, or is it one out of a million? Is is a bell curve or a power law distribution? We don't know. So we cant use the information in hiring, compensation, team composition, project management or anywhere else.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#78

Post by bonif »

BasDirks wrote: post #21
jasode wrote: post #15

>these papers did not actually bring any original evidence in support of the notion that some programmers are 10X better than others, [...] What I’ve been saying is that the data is not actually there, so we do not have any strong proof of the actual claim. I can agree with the specific observation that there is no consensus on concrete quantifiable data to prove "10x" with mathematical rigor. Ok, let's set aside "10…

The ones you mentioned are 100x programmers, both in prowess and impact. People need to stop obsessing over the term. It's awesome that great programmers exist. Stop being so insecure.

Agreed. And the same happens in every field, sports are a good example, you see the 100x people on TV.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#79

Post by vonmoltke »

RogerL wrote: post #66
vonmoltke wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there may be a domain you can drop Jessica and Jacob into where they become equivalent, or even flip-flop. My problem with the myth is the part that posits there are a bunch of programmers you can drop on anything and have them be more productive than the average. They exist, but they are very rare, just like Einstein-caliber scientists are very rare. In fact, you connected "10X" with "six-sigma";…

Why is that a problem? Maybe Jacob should be doing enterprise development, or maybe he should be a chef. We aren't saying Jessica is a 10x human , just that she is 10x at the assignments that she has been given, or made on her own. When I assign projects I think about a person's ability. Not just what they know, but what I want them to know in the future, how quickly they might get things done, how much technical deb…

So, the problem is this. The myth is about a "10X programmer". No qualification. If you look at hiring discussions, there seem to be a significant number of people in these circles that believe there are programmers who are nearly 10 times as productive as the average (or bottom; this seems to change from poster to poster) at nearly everything they touch. If you don't believe me, read some of the hiring discussions here.

Jessica is not a "10X programmer". Jessica is a "10X $TASK programmer", where $TASK may or may not comprise an entire role. $TASK might even be as large as "web dev" or "enterprise dev". It is nearly impossible to screen for, though, unless someone has directly comparable work experience, where directly comparable includes intangibles like work environment.

Re: 10X Programmer and Other Software Engineering Myths

#80

Post by [deleted] »

larsberg wrote: post #58
fsk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the better programmers have more leverage to negotiate better work conditions, so it isn't a causal effect.

Yes, this is mentioned in the paper, right next to where they talk about the correlation. The most telling part, though, is where they take some of the lower-25% from cubicle farm/open office spaces and put them in private office spaces. Guess what happens?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN