[debacle]

People who don't believe in 10x programmers don't understand that they themselves are probably 3x or 4x programmers, thus to them a 10x programmer is probably only a 2.5x or 3x programmer relatively speaking.

There are a lot of 1x programmers out there. So many that it's very easy to be an "above average" programmer.

I am not a 10x programmer, but I'm not a 1x programmer either. I've met people who are 6-10x programmers, and they are incredibly good at what they do, to an extent that's hard to describe. I think it requires an even balance of skill, pragmatism, experience, and passion that allows someone to have that kind of performance.

[jasonlotito]

What about 10.1947x programmers. Or 5.345x programmers?

And, do you average out the productivity, or is that the minimum or maximum? I mean, if you go on vacation, you are a 0x programmer for that time you are gone.

Basically, I think it's a silly thing that's been taken to far. Everyone is a 1x programmer compared to themselves, and a 10x programmer when compared to the right person in the right context.

[debacle]

10.1947x programmers are a myth.

[alguemoi]

I think you don't know how to read.

[debacle]

I don't know how to respond to that. What meaningful insights am I ignoring that I should be picking up on?

[alguemoi]

The myth, present in the referenced articles and books, isn't that exists different levels of engineers, but that exists a gap between 1x and 10x.

[Dylan16807]

Are you sure? I've never heard that aspect to it.