[8chanAnon]

On the positive side, lower productivity boosts employment. It has always been well understood that a few good programmers, properly motivated, can potentially outperform a team of 100. It is perhaps a good thing that companies continue to ignore this truth else millions would be unemployed. Of course, AI is poised to upset the apple cart and millions will end up begging anyway.

[warrenm]

>always been well understood that a few good programmers, properly motivated, can potentially outperform a team of 100

But it's NOT because of the mythical "10x programmer" (another Spolskyism)

It's because of communication overhead - in general, the smaller the team, the faster the solution

[8chanAnon]

I don't know about that. I have a few successes under my belt where I've outperformed a team. For example, delivering a solution in two months compared to a team of four failing to deliver anything at all in a year. Then there are the well known geniuses who delivered Doom and Quake in a spectacularly short time frame. There are many other examples. I do agree, however, that 10x programmers are few and far between.

[warrenm]

sure - I've rolled-out stuff in timeframes that made the team look bad ... and then had another project where, had I been working on it, we'd still be working on it

doesn't make me a "10x engineer"

nor does it make anyone else a "10x engineer"

it makes us better at certain tasks than others - which is what you would expect among any population: there are people very good at riding bikes long distances (they try to win the Tour de France), there are others good at explaining obscure topics in a way anyone can feel good about learning them (they usually have YouTube channels or are history professors)