[JSZZHlmumeUE]

People who think judging performance is hard have a broken development methodology or no technical chops.

I suggest you reflect on this. It seems to me that you've convinced yourself that you are good at certain things but there isn't really any evidence supporting your beliefs.

When I was younger, I actually used to think like you - that perf evaluation is easy and a good engineer (e.g. me) would be able to evaluate others easily. Over time, I've realized this is an incredibly complex and nuanced issue because everyone's strengths and weaknesses are so very multifaceted. I am more or less convinced that people who think they have all the right answers simply have a lot of blindspots.

[Ensorceled]

I've been managing teams for more than 20 years. Performance evaluation is easy, somebody is either performing well or they are not and a good manager can tell. One of the reason I like Agile is that if it's done right, the whole team can tell who isn't performing.

Performance analysis is incredibly complex and nuanced. Judging if somebody is performing poorly because they are unskilled or not managed properly or having marital problems is hard. Improving performance is even more difficult because it requires the analysis and a remediation plan.

[SnacksOnAPlane]

This kind of thinking throws me into infinite loops. I think I'm not such a good developer, which makes me think that I must be a good developer because I recognize my limitations, which makes me think that I'm not such a good developer because I think I'm a good developer, and so on.

[Ensorceled]

HN has a real problem with people who self identify as good programmers ... there is always a bunch of "no you're not" and "you only think you are" and "people who say they are good usually suck" type of responses. It's pretty weird reaction for a tech site where many good programmers hang out.

[SubuSS]

The problem is companies are looking for engineers while you are talking about this in terms of programmers. In most companies, it is about shipping and making a difference to the bottom line. It doesn't really matter if you are a good programmer if you are not getting things out of the door / ensuring future dev/maintenance will be pain free. For this programming is a tool, just like planning / estimation / design skills / being likable which helps with mentoring new developers etc. The % might differ, but the net evaluation has to be on the whole. Net results are also based on the big picture - what is your impact on the product? If we go by programming abilities alone, then managers must make base pay, which they don't. Also as you grow senior, the requirements change too.

And I don't know your scale of 'good' programmer either: What do you mean by that? Are you saying you are as good as Linus Torvalds or are you saying you are better than your current peers? I am assuming it is the latter - which probably means zilch in a site like this. Many folks here receive that recognition and over time they come to a conclusion that it doesn't mean much. Which is why you get a lot of naysayers. They aren't doubting you, they are just doubting the general feeling as been there, done that.

[Ensorceled]

I don't think that is it. If you self identify as a good engineer/developer/progammer you get the same response. It's the self identifying thing that's seems to be the problem.

Look at this thread, there are several who are very explicitly doubting me in no uncertain terms. Even doubting the idea that I'm good compared to my current peers.