I don't believe that the majority of comments on Twitter are trying to say that every developer is as as equal as every other. Many of them are arguing that the "10x developer" idea is unrealistic in the sense that management wants to hire someone 10x more productive than everyone else (this story agrees, 10x is a big exaggeration). Some people have worked with so-called 10x developers, who have been slavishly defended from criticism by management, who are churning out piles of code that will be difficult to maintain, it seems that some of those people also have some toxic behaviors.
In terms of the question "do 10x developers exist", I wonder if it really matters. An argument has been made that there are people far better at chess or football or piano than everyone else, so there must be developers who are vastly better than the average in the field. I'm not sure that software development is really the same kind of thing... But even so, we do not have the systems in place that would allow us to recognize such people. All we have, for the most part, are anecdotes from recruiters and managers and many of these stories sound self-serving and exploitative.
It could be the 10x developer exists in the same sense that the 10x CEO exists: every so often one appears and seems to meet the standard. But the closer we look, the more circumstance and the people they surrounded themselves with seemed to be even more important. Often it looks like maybe the particular period of time was a factor as well. And the argument goes on and on, so on and so forth.
That's a more generous reading of the mood on Twitter. I also think that many people have good intentions, and are only trying to reduce the general levels of impostor syndrome.
> Some people have worked with so-called 10x developers, who have been slavishly defended from criticism by management, who are churning out piles of code that will be difficult to maintain, ...
And I have experienced this anti-pattern several times. But I worry that we're throwing out the child with the toxic genius bathwater.
> 10x is a big exaggeration
The actual actual factor is a function of your work environment. If HR hired "nice" people who failed all the trivial interview questions, would that number still seem unbelievably high? That's what some small shops do when developers are hard to find :|
Fair enough, once there's more than a handful of replies a Twitter thread turns into a trash fire. The replies and posts that I have read, insofar as I had patience to read them, struck me this way.
I don't think any organization has the ability to hire exclusively 10x developers, even if they did exist. Large places with deep pockets can afford to hire many people and then promote those they perceive as meeting their own idea of what a 10x developer might be.
On average, I think everyone should try to hire the best people that they can. Companies should try to retain their best people and encourage everyone to improve. Over time, the productive people will emerge and should be valued by the organization. Are they going to be the mythical 10x developers? Maybe, maybe not.
This idea that you can hire a 10x developer to guarantee the success of your project is, in my opinion, a waste of time and money. If you think it's working then I bet technical debt is piling up and it will catch up with the organization eventually.
In terms of the question "do 10x developers exist", I wonder if it really matters. An argument has been made that there are people far better at chess or football or piano than everyone else, so there must be developers who are vastly better than the average in the field. I'm not sure that software development is really the same kind of thing... But even so, we do not have the systems in place that would allow us to recognize such people. All we have, for the most part, are anecdotes from recruiters and managers and many of these stories sound self-serving and exploitative.
It could be the 10x developer exists in the same sense that the 10x CEO exists: every so often one appears and seems to meet the standard. But the closer we look, the more circumstance and the people they surrounded themselves with seemed to be even more important. Often it looks like maybe the particular period of time was a factor as well. And the argument goes on and on, so on and so forth.