7 ms·

I guess this all depends on your definition of 10x. It sounds like you are saying 10x the average person rather than 10x the average person who works in that fi

I guess this all depends on your definition of 10x. It sounds like you are saying 10x the average person rather than 10x the average person who works in that field. I'm a 10x developer if we count non developers. I am not if we could people who work as developers. Likewise there are expert marathon runners who are 10X, or more, than the average human. But there are not marathon runners who run 10x faster than other professional marathon runners.

lixtra 5y ago
> But there are not marathon runners who run 10x faster than other professional marathon runners. It’s true that they don’t run 10 times as fast, but the marathon runner that is 1% faster will finish 10x more races before the slower one (YMMV depending on stdev). Similar in software development, picking a 1% better local solution often enough can make the global result 10x better due to the complexity of the systems.
- Humdeee 5y ago
  This example holds true imo. There is a world of difference between a 2:10 marathoner and a 2:30 marathoner. Same as a 4 min miler and a 4:30 miler, etc. Because of diminishing returns, improvement can still be seen as potentially some kind of multiple in many skillsets.
- Taylor_OD 5y ago
  So 1x devs exist? I agree.
deltree7 5y ago
Claude Shannon, Dennis Ritchie, Vitalik Buterin, Jeff Dean are all 10x programmers. Let's not pretend they dont exist
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Perhaps. But is it meaningful to talk about these incredible outlier cases when considering how you structure an engineering organization? I think there are two kinds of companies that make tech: 1. Companies where all of the technical problems they need to solve can be solved by typical engineers. 2. Companies where some of the technical problems they need to solve are too difficult to be solved by typical engineers. In the latter case you do need "special" engineers and you need to point them at these problems. But what percentage of companies fall into category #2?
  - solveit 5y ago
    3. Companies that have technical problems that can easily be solved by typical engineers but not noticed and articulated by typical engineers. Which is most of them. The main value of "special" engineers come from them pointing you to the right problems. Notice how all of Ritchie, Shannon, Dean and Buterin certainly fall into this category. They were all technically proficient enough, but that's not the point. A seasoned veteran would have coded circles around Buterin at age 20, which is when he invented Ethereum. The point is that the seasoned veteran didn't invent Ethereum. Similarly, Shannon's most influential work (that paper that basically invented information theory) is fairly elementary, and basically any geezer with a relevant PhD had had the technical chops for the paper. But they never would have written that paper in a million years.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  10x what? As far as I'm aware, Shannon wasn't even a programmer. I'm sure Ritchie was pretty good at coding in the language he invented; AIUI, that language is pretty similar to the assembly language of the machine he designed it for. I don't know anything about Buterin and Dean. I'm sure these people all had brilliant ideas and insights, that I couldn't begin to match. But given an arbitrary dev task, I doubt they'd come close to 10x the performance of a reasonably competent dev.
  - deltree7 5y ago
    'dev task', 'shannon wasn't a programmer', 'don't know about buterin, dean' -- There in lies your problem, seriously
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      Shannon was a mathematician, famous for his work on information theory. Wikipedia says he presented a paper on the subject of programming a computer to play chess. In 1949. It doesn't mention any other programming accomplishments. And as far as I know, there were no programming languages at that time. And if my "problem" is not having heard of Buterin and Dean, I reckon myself a fortunate fellow - I can think of worse problems.

lixtra 5y ago

> But there are not marathon runners who run 10x faster than other professional marathon runners. It’s true that they don’t run 10 times as fast, but the marathon runner that is 1% faster will finish 10x more races before the slower one (YMMV depending on stdev). Similar in software development, picking a 1% better local solution often enough can make the global result 10x better due to the complexity of the systems.

Humdeee 5y ago
This example holds true imo. There is a world of difference between a 2:10 marathoner and a 2:30 marathoner. Same as a 4 min miler and a 4:30 miler, etc. Because of diminishing returns, improvement can still be seen as potentially some kind of multiple in many skillsets.
Taylor_OD 5y ago
So 1x devs exist? I agree.

deltree7 5y ago

Claude Shannon, Dennis Ritchie, Vitalik Buterin, Jeff Dean are all 10x programmers. Let's not pretend they dont exist

UncleMeat 5y ago
Perhaps. But is it meaningful to talk about these incredible outlier cases when considering how you structure an engineering organization? I think there are two kinds of companies that make tech: 1. Companies where all of the technical problems they need to solve can be solved by typical engineers. 2. Companies where some of the technical problems they need to solve are too difficult to be solved by typical engineers. In the latter case you do need "special" engineers and you need to point them at these problems. But what percentage of companies fall into category #2?
- solveit 5y ago
  3. Companies that have technical problems that can easily be solved by typical engineers but not noticed and articulated by typical engineers. Which is most of them. The main value of "special" engineers come from them pointing you to the right problems. Notice how all of Ritchie, Shannon, Dean and Buterin certainly fall into this category. They were all technically proficient enough, but that's not the point. A seasoned veteran would have coded circles around Buterin at age 20, which is when he invented Ethereum. The point is that the seasoned veteran didn't invent Ethereum. Similarly, Shannon's most influential work (that paper that basically invented information theory) is fairly elementary, and basically any geezer with a relevant PhD had had the technical chops for the paper. But they never would have written that paper in a million years.
denton-scratch 5y ago
10x what? As far as I'm aware, Shannon wasn't even a programmer. I'm sure Ritchie was pretty good at coding in the language he invented; AIUI, that language is pretty similar to the assembly language of the machine he designed it for. I don't know anything about Buterin and Dean. I'm sure these people all had brilliant ideas and insights, that I couldn't begin to match. But given an arbitrary dev task, I doubt they'd come close to 10x the performance of a reasonably competent dev.
- deltree7 5y ago
  'dev task', 'shannon wasn't a programmer', 'don't know about buterin, dean' -- There in lies your problem, seriously
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Shannon was a mathematician, famous for his work on information theory. Wikipedia says he presented a paper on the subject of programming a computer to play chess. In 1949. It doesn't mention any other programming accomplishments. And as far as I know, there were no programming languages at that time. And if my "problem" is not having heard of Buterin and Dean, I reckon myself a fortunate fellow - I can think of worse problems.