Far worse for the industry than all these supposedly awful programmers out there is the rampant egotism that dominates developer culture, and that's where this ridiculous 10x obsession comes from.<p>As good as some developers can be and as bad as others can be, even the best will routinely make severe mistakes and write bad code. Aspiring to be some sort of god among programmers won't actually make you great, it will just make you arrogant and unable to see your own failings and ignorance, which will always be vast compared to your skills and knowledge.<p>On the other side, it isn't fluffy snowflake talk to say that every human being has his or her areas of strength and exceptional insight. Helping less experienced programmers on a team learn and grow, and figuring out how they can contribute productively without causing problems is likely worth a much bigger bonus than one guru who thinks his shit doesn't stink and talks down to everyone else. According to Zen, the beginner's state of mind is ideal because it is free of preconceptions. Someone who believes the ideas of a novice are beneath him will be blind to a lot of wisdom.<p>As a last aside, <i>every</i> team I've ever worked on that inherits code thinks the code is shit and rewrites it. Then when some other team inherits the rewritten code, they proclaim it shit and rewrite it again. Some percentage of this is due to bad code. Some is because all complex applications which are developed in a hurry in shifting business environments end up pretty hairy. And the rest is because almost all complicated code looks like shit when it's unfamiliar, even if it's fairly well engineered. So you'll throw it out and run into all the same issues on your rewrite and your code will end up just as opaque, but you'll understand it now so you'll think it's brilliant, and then you'll write self-congratulatory blog posts about how great you are and how terrible everyone else is, blissfully oblivious that in 3 months, a new developer will take on the project and rewrite it and write the same exact blog post out of imperious disgust for your work.
<p><pre><code> [ ] What separates the 10x devs from the 1x? (what _is_ it? Environment, skill, ...)
[X] 10x productivity myths (why you shouldn't believe it)
[ ] 10x productivity truths (but, but, it IS true, see?)
[ ] Be the 10x developer (aspiring to be one)
[ ] Startup perspective (should startups try to acquire 10x devs?)
[ ] Why the 10x notion pisses me off (why it shouldn't matter)
[ ] If 10x productivity why not 10x salary? (or similar)
[ ] Some meta discussion on the metrics of "productivity" (solve for x)
[ ] Technologies/Languages/Tools/Methodologies that facilitate/impede 10x?
[X] 10x in other professions?
</code></pre>
I feel there is a cycle to this 10x talk on HN. Roughly twice a year, some post will trigger this event, at which and a series of posts are made and new articles written, as if oblivious the the last cycle.
The reason why we have the 10x developer myth is that by the definition the author uses "good" developers are rare and "bad" developers are extremely common.<p>Entire development teams consist of such bad developers. Many of us worked in such teams at one time or another, and it's part what makes us so obsessed with quality and good development practices.<p>We're dealing with the unprecedented reality that software is already everywhere, but the process of identifying and training good developers has barely started. Most companies that develop software don't even supply their programmers with the proper tools and work environment. It's like living in a world where everyone has a car, but only 90% of all mechanics aren't capable of doing more than just applying some duct-tape, and most garages are ill-equipped barns.<p>Most software is appallingly badly made, and has a very short lifespan.<p>And no, this is not just because technology moves so fast. Most of the languages we code in are almost 20 years old, and the techniques and conventions for coding in them even older. Core architectures are based on design conventions that existed before most of us started programming. The fast innovation mostly happens around the edges.<p>Software development is a ridiculously immature profession compared to it's social and economic importance, and the majority of programmers are as incompetent as a neanderthal with a chemistry set.
What all these 10x developer posts miss is really simple. 10x developer may not even work that fast. He might seem extremely slow to those around him. However 10x developers bring TCO of a system waaay below all the "I did this in a weekend" crowd.<p>10x developer thinks and implements just the right level of abstraction, does just enough testing and implements just enough unit testing. He will think of the forest and will not blindly howl at the trees.<p>I would go and write a blog post about it to harvest some free karma. But I am just too busy/lazy to do it.<p>However my point is that all the OP and everybody posting their blogs are ignorant pricks and should really at the very least read and try to understand the Mythical Man Month from Brooks, before they go and start overloading a perfectly fine and understandable term.<p>Thanks.
My gut feeling, based on years of experience in making unsubstantiated claims, is that the best developers are e^(i*pi) more productive than the worse ones. The measure I have chosen is the number of bugs per square centimetre of screen code in 12pt Comic Sans font.
OP correctly points out that productivity and monetary value created are non-linear and extremely problematic to measure for the software development profession. More importantly, OP reminds us that software dev is far from being the only career for which this is the case.<p>In "convex" work, as michaelochurch calls it, most of the time you are actually contributing less value than you are being paid for, if you are drawing a salary. Some days your work might contribute no direct value at all, or even subtract value. But occasionally, by creating something new that itself generates value, you can contribute exponentially more value than you are being paid for. But you still only get your salary. Because taking a salaried job is selling your downside risk along with the potential upside reward to buy income stability.<p>A "10x developer" isn't someone who writes 10x more LOC or even contributes 10x more valuable software on a daily basis. It's a developer who is able to occasionally make those big breakthroughs that you hope for when you're doing convex work.
The point Paul Graham (and the 10x hustler article) made was that if you are good, you could be 10 times more productive.<p>Not because you type 10 times faster or develop the same code 10 times faster than somebody else, it is because none of the big coorporation bureaucracy slows you down and you can choose whatever technology you want and don't have the burden of code that is growing in size and complexity that you have to maintain.
10X is real. Spend some time in the enterprise. There really are programmers who only write 10 lines of code per day, maintaining bullshit that should have been taken out to pasture years ago, and who "flip the switch" on learning at age 23. And they're paid good money for it, too! Probably more than 90+ percent of the people here.<p>It's not necessarily "10". It's somewhere between 1.5 and 1000 depending on the project. It's 2-3x for typical business work; 10+ for infrastructural work that multiplies across the company (i.e. makes everyone more productive). I'm writing about developer economics (Part 22 of a series that was supposed to be 22 parts, but will be 23).<p>What 10X means is: <i>give me a million bucks a year, or let me have 90% autonomy, or we both lose</i>. And if more developers took that attitude, we'd have better software, more learning, and a better fucking world, too.<p>Ok, I declare myself winner of this thread and I am taking it home with me.
I'd have to agree with the article. When you talk about your doctor, you don't say you have a 1X doctor vs a 10X doctor and that with the 10X doctor you'll heal up 10 times as quickly.<p>That 1X doctor may very well kill you.