This is coming up b/c of the 10x engineer tweet from an Accel Ventures VC. This is how they defined a 10x engineer/what to look for in order to spot them:
- They hate meetings (doesn't everybody?)
- They keep irregular hours
- They use a black desktop background
- They wear out the i, f, x keys on their keyboard instead of a, s e (the latter 3 are apparently correlated to sending lots of emails somehow)
- They know every line of code and can therefor immediately trace back any bug in prod to the exact line of code
- They are full-stack engineers, code is code so they can do everything but they won't touch UI
- They convert thought into code by caffeine fueled code binge sessions in which they implement any product feature over the span of 4-6 hours
- They rarely if ever need to rely on documentation
- They are always using the latest and newest tech
- They are poor mentors and interviewers b/c: They always think "It takes too long to teach or discuss with others, I would rather do it myself."
- They don't hack things, they write quality code and know exactly how the code needs and will evolve over time
The person who wrote that tweet is not a developer.
The conclusions this VC has drawn about what makes developers productive is Voodoo.
He's observed people who he thinks are productive, and gathered together his observations/prejudices/misjudgements about those people and concluded that the Voodoo is the magic. I'm sure there's some great analogy out there about drawing conclusions about how something works based on misunderstood observations, but I can't think of that analogy.
This isn't a guide for identifying 10x developers. This is a guide to identify suckers. Something which is in the interest of a VC.
> They rarely job hunt or move out of a company (and all the other bullet points)
means
> Exploitable human being that is socially unadept, impatient, unsecure about their own self-worth and so difficult to manage that competitors won't recognize their business value so you can lowball them easily
When I was young and foolish, I wanted nothing to do with UI either. Then one day I woke up and realized that to the user, the UI was the program in its entirety. Everything lives and dies by the UI. It doesn't matter how wonderful or sublime your code is if nobody can operate it.
I don't think you can be a 10x engineer until you realize this.
The same thing you need to do to make lots of money and be put in a position of responsibility anywhere (whether you're good at what you do or not).
Be good and convincing people they should pay you lots of money and be given a position of responsibility. Either by being a good enough at communication that you can convince people your work is good whether it is or not, some kind of nepotism/social proof, sheer luck, or some combination of the above.
There's also actually being good enough that your work speaks for itself, but the OP asked about clueless people.
I'm similarly baffled about the the i, f, x thing. I can think of justifications but they're all pretty dumb. I'm pretty sure that whole bullet point was based on exactly nothing this guy's ever seen in real life.
I assumed i and x were because they are the most common variable names in loops, i and f are used in if statements. So he is saying these guys write lots of loops and if statements - I am not going to write a conclusion here because I am trying to lay off the cheap wit.
I thought the "i" was for "insert" and f for "find" (that i use a lot to move quickly in a line in vi/spacemacs). But i am wrong, and realising made me smile a bit.
This is BS though. I used to work with "10" devs (more like 2 tbh) and the only way to be at their level is to:
- Have a lot of creativity and nerves (because sometime you have to "hack" something in a really short time). They can be 10 in this case.
- Know your tools and your product really, really well.
- Be on point on everything surrounding your product: basics on GUI, network, hardware, security and crypto (even if your basic on crypto is "do not run your own crypto", its enough).
Also the 2 10 i met were not jerks, and one i only talked to via skype was just a bit arrogant but nothing unsufferable, so to me it is a urban legend.
I think that 10x engineer streotype is ridiculous but the backslash in the Twitter is also discouraging. Most of the responses in the Twitter reject that 10x engineers exist. Some even go far like creating this website: http://10x.engineer/
But there are people like Linus Torvalds, Fabrice Bellard.
I think we need to hit the right balance. We don't want to worship 10x engineers but we don't want to limit the potential of the engineers by saying 10x engineers don't exist.
- They hate meetings (doesn't everybody?)
- They keep irregular hours
- They use a black desktop background
- They wear out the i, f, x keys on their keyboard instead of a, s e (the latter 3 are apparently correlated to sending lots of emails somehow)
- They know every line of code and can therefor immediately trace back any bug in prod to the exact line of code
- They are full-stack engineers, code is code so they can do everything but they won't touch UI
- They convert thought into code by caffeine fueled code binge sessions in which they implement any product feature over the span of 4-6 hours
- They rarely if ever need to rely on documentation
- They are always using the latest and newest tech
- They are poor mentors and interviewers b/c: They always think "It takes too long to teach or discuss with others, I would rather do it myself."
- They don't hack things, they write quality code and know exactly how the code needs and will evolve over time
- They rarely job hunt or move out of a company
https://twitter.com/skirani/status/1149302828420067328
I can't even begin to comprehend how some of these are in any way an indicator of a 10x anything.
Keep that in mind as you read through this post.