|
|
|
|
|
|
by TimTheTinker
2543 days ago
|
|
|
> I'm saying that the non-elites are counter-productive, that they contribute negative productivity. You may have concrete examples of that, but I couldn't agree based on my own perspective/experience. I've worked on a team with an elite programmer (in terms of actual 10x productivity) for nearly 3 years now. I know they're not all the same, but this guy isn't particularly sophisticated or cerebral in his approach; in fact, he wouldn't want to take on architectural concerns, refactoring, or really complex problems - I and another dev take care of that. He's just incredibly productive, by any measure you'd like to use -- LOC contributed, modules written, features implemented, issues closed. I've sometimes wondered if he's a front for an entire team behind him. That doesn't mean the rest of us aren't worth having on the team. We are definitely contributing positively. In fact, he couldn't work anywhere close to the rate he does if he had to take care of the stuff the rest of us do. |
|
|
The kind of people I'm talking about are not necessarily fast and they tend to leverage other people's abilities rather than shut them out.
Like Fabrice Bellard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrice_Bellard
Ridiculously sharp guy, and his work has enabled so much other stuff and so many other people, eh?
- - - -
No team of ten people could do what arcfide does, eh? It would all get bogged down in intercommunication, etc. We pay a price for programming with sub-elite programmers. Metaphorically, I'm trying to say that teams dragging stone blocks are hindering the adoption of the wheel. (I'm not trying to make stone-block-draggers feel bad, FWIW.)