[Aeolun]

I don't think that is unfair. It’s perfectly acceptable to be a 3x developer.

What bothers me is the people that are happy to be a <1 developer. Or even a <0 developer, whose benefit to the team is net negative.

[rat9988]

>What bothers me is the people that are happy to be a <1 developer.

We can't all be above average. So we are either all 1 developper, or some of us are bound to be less.

[kvb]

But we can all aspire to be a >1 developer, even if we're not one currently. I don't necessarily think that contentment with being below average is universally bad (maybe it's perfectly rational given one's preferences for leisure vs. work, for example), but I'd hope that most <1 developers are juniors who hope to improve over time.

[Aeolun]

Fair enough, but given the current ecosystem <1 still means something.

If it ever gets to the point where everyone is floating somewhere between 0.9 and 1.1, I’ll revise my statement.

[blub]

It's unfair if they're normal employees, but fine if they're contractors/have their own company.

When they're spending all their working hours on one topic they're taking a huge personal sacrifice which is invisible to their employer while at the same time raising the expectations towards their colleagues. If there's for example two such maniacs in a team, the rest can say goodbye to promotions and raises even if they're actually just as good but don't sacrifice their life at the altar of programming.