>> Within just this group the ratios between best and worst performances averaged about 10:1 on productivity measurements and an amazing 5:1 on program speed and space measurements!

> (although I’m personally skeptical of the “10x programmer” concept, the software industry overall does seem to accept it as true)

To be fair, this statement from Brooks doesn't entirely match with the "10x programmer" we talk about. My take on it is when someone says "10x programmer" today, they mean 10x more productive than the average, not 10x more productive than the worst. Brooks' statement is about the latter. If he'd looked at the difference between average and best, I would assume you'd get something more like a 2x or 4x programmer.

▲

leptons an hour ago | parent [-]

There's no such thing as a "10x" programmer, and anyone who uses it doesn't know what they're talking about.

10x relative to what exactly? It's not a statement grounded in any kind of reality.

	▲	jay_kyburz 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I've never understood it to be literal, but from my experience there is a big difference between the folks that show up to work on time, jump right into their work, they pay attention in meetings, know code base, and have the ability "lock in" as my kids say. On the other hand you have folks that show up late, spend all day chatting at the water cooler, get distracted with home stuff, comment on hacker news all day, and only manage to squeeze in a few hours of actual work a day.
	▲	hackable_sand an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's a transparent exercise in ego-stroking to justify one's commitment to capital incentives.