Is the 10x thing really only about speed? I would say this guy is a perfect 10x example as he actually gets to the root cause of a difficult problem. When I think of 1x (or less) devs they are usually the type that don't get things done because they can't (without a lot of help), not because they are slow. I.E. overall technical chops, not just speed.
As long as they're moderately competent, yes. They need to know how to debug normal things, but they don't need to handle every esoteric niche. The thing that matters is ability to put out tons of productive code.
Often that means a speciality where they're an expert, but it doesn't have to mean that.
> When I think of 1x (or less) devs they are usually the type that don't get things done because they can't (without a lot of help), not because they are slow. I.E. overall technical chops, not just speed.
It sounds like you're taking "1x" as a dismissal. Isn't it supposed to be a pretty ordinary dev?
Yeah... didn't mean the 1x as dismissively as it came off. Got to carried away with my point. My mistake.
But to my original point, I just don't buy the 10X story as being only how fast you write code. I've known developers who designed and wrote such that much time was saved working with that code in the future. These people are, IMO, much more deserving of the 10x moniker as maintaining code is much more important that just cranking it out... with the only possible exception being early stage startup (but not really as they will be crippled in the next stage).
