|
The difference between a bad developer and an average developer is small, but the difference between an average developer and a great developer is enormous. It’s an ocean of difference. A great developer is 20x more valuable than an average developer, easily, and so it’s critical to hire one great developer, instead of 20 average developers. Help us Rockstar Ninja Developer. You're our only hope!
|
|
|
|
|
So I posted a comment on his website and he didn't like it so now he's blocked me from ever posting on his blog. I wasn't even that rude. I only asked where he got the 20x number from and suggested he made it up. He doesn't, apparently, have the courage of his convictions and felt it better to delete my post and ban me rather than try and answer my questions.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Rockstars sometimes have huge, but fragile, egos.
|
|
|
|
|
I take it these are your posts:
"•Mark
What a pile of festering crap. 20x? Really? Where did you get that number from? Thin air is my guess. There is no objective way to decide who is a great and not so great developer. It can change with time and project and by the people you are judged against in the team you happen to be in at any given time. And you might be awful at distinguishing great developers because you’re a self-obsessed and talent-less twat but some of us have gotten reasonable enough at it not to keep hiring morons. Keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re a fool; open it and let them know you are a fool.
•John
Seriously? You think by deleting my post that makes you right? You’re not right: you can’t just pluck a number out of thin air and not expect to be lambasted for it. Still, I suppose you’ll delete this as well – your ego must be terribly fragile if it can’t take any criticism."
|
|
|
|
|
Your point?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
No. I'm assuming they are your point, not mine. I found his article too poor to even summon up the energy to be apathetic about it.
|
|
|
|
|
They are indeed. Normally I don't bother but I am 86.7% against people who make up random numbers or statistics to make a point.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 15.2x more likely to agree with that point than with a poke in the nose with a wire brush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
20x seems too high to me. I seem to recall that it's been measured as 10x difference in productivity between different ability levels (I forget where this stat comes from, probably Mythical Man Month, Code Complete or Joel Spolsky, or maybe a combination of all?)
|
|
|
|
|
TLDR version: good developers contribute code, bad developers contribute crud (not "create, read, update, delete").
|
|
|
|
|
I kind of agree with the article but the 20x figure is completely arbitrary. To me good developers along with getting the job done also consider future implications of their actions. There are too many developers who get their immediate tasks done, only to stock your codebase up with future WTFs as soon as you need to reuse a part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you have bushy-bearded purists who write .NET code as if it was still C++ and they say, "Our code is good, your new way of doing it is bad."
Sincerely Yours,
Brian Hart
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe hire a Rockstar Manager who can get the most out of one excellent and 20 average devs.
|
|
|
|
|
Your odds of finding a dev that is 20x over the competition are pretty close to zero. I've worked with several devs at different companies who thought they were that great and what they produced was always horrifyingly bad. Usually along the lines of: "That's some great code there guys, it doesn't do what the client needs, trying to hack it into something the client can use will only take us 3x longer, but it is neat-o."
I'd rather have 20 devs to bounce ideas off of and to try new things than 1 rockstar.
|
|
|
|
|
The developer skills are multiple.
Some are great coders.
Some are great documenters.
Some are great debugger.
Some are great finishers.
Some are great analyst.
... probably many more
In my experience when someone is super skilled in one of those skill he will then be really poor in others.
In my opinion there is no such thing as a great developer.
There are great teams though.
A great team of developers is a team where team members have complementary skills and respect each others strength and weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
|
This is an extremely opinionated article. I am sure that there is a big advantage in hiring better developers, but he does not justify the 20x. Without backing data, the article is basically useless. Why not say 100x. He could have. Maybe not as beleivable. Also, what is even better, is hiring a manager that can create better developers. How much better would be a manager that can create a successful development group than even a great developer. There is a saying I saw: Learn from other people's successes, not their failures, and definately not your own failure.
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: Help us Rockstar Ninja Developer. You're our only hope!
You also need to not see a Ph.D. on my resume and then judge my book by its cover. I am a dweeb, but a very humble dweeb.
Sincerely Yours,
Brian Hart
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever there is a conversation about the future of computing, the discussion inevitably turns to the notion of a “File.” After all, most tablets and phones don’t show the user anything that resembles a file, only Apps that contain their own content, tucked away inside their own opaque storage structure. This is wrong. Interoperability? We don't need no stinking interoperability!
|
|
|
|
|
With Friday being the fifth anniversary of the iPhone’s release—five years since those initial crazy lines, since the debate about whether Apple could just walk right in and change the phone industry, and the rest—it’s worth considering what the world was like back then. There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share.
|
|
|
|
|
Apple’s new MacBook Pros have absolutely great displays, but they need every single pixel they have, because the truth of the matter is that Apple’s got a long way to go before it catches its display tech up to the incredible power of human vision. And that’s a good thing, because it means we’ve got a lot to look forward to. Eagle eye for the developer guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Cult of Mac wrote: And that’s a good thing, because it means we’ve got a lot of fleecing to look forward to.
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
The history of the remote, as it's widely and improperly understood, began in 1950 with a Zenith device called the Lazy Bones. The new, hand-held thumb-clicker was attached to a set by a long cord, and allowed customers to "take it easy" by working a receiver from their seat. After more than six decades, the Lazy Bones is still how most of us understand the remote control—as a tool of relaxation and a means for doing nothing at all. Wait, what does this red button do?
|
|
|
|
|
Remotes are convenient up to a point. I have three in my lounge for the DVD player, TV and satellite box. They have different form factors and worse, the one for the DVD has so many buttons you need a magnifying glass to read the text below them. If the technology itself can't solve the problem then the problem is better left unsolved.
The so-called self-learning operation is also hit-and-miss. A button pressed on the DVD player can interfere with the TV. I don't need so many buttons; but the endless pursuit to make devices do more requires the manufacturers to throw all sorts of features that nobody asked for or wants or needs. You see the same in cars. Car manufacturers exploit powerful computing to give your central console all sorts of features. The difference between the UI and function is wide.
"I do not have to forgive my enemies, I have had them all shot." — Ramón Maria Narváez (1800-68).
"I don't need to shoot my enemies, I don't have any." - Me (2012).
|
|
|
|
|
We set out to make it as easy as possible for everyone to upgrade to Windows 8. Starting at general availability, if your PC is running Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7 you will qualify to download an upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for just $39.99 in 131 markets. And if you want, you can add Windows Media Center for free through the “add features” option within Windows 8 Pro after your upgrade. It looks like you're upgrading Windows. Would you like help?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
