>>Part of the problem there is the lack of a way to even measure coding ability. "We are infants in figuring out how to measure our ability to produce software", he said. What are our metrics? Lines of code—what does that measure? Story points? "What even is a story point?", he wondered.
Indeed, what is programming talent? What is a 'good' programmer? What is a 10x rock star? These notions are similarly ill defined. I can think of at least 3 formulations of 'talent':
1. A developer who can craft an exquisite solution to a problem using the patterns of the domain and/or the idioms of the language.
2. A developer who puts in Heroic efforts to produce a lot of code in a short amount of timing, to meet business objectives.
3. A developer who is 'smart and gets things done'.
One can poke holes into any of these formulations; is the exquisite solution delivered in a reasonable amount of time? Is the quickly delivered code maintainable and extensible or a maintenance nightmare? Does the smart and get things done guy leave a spaghetti trail in his wake?
In the end, I think we've all noticed that some people tend to simply accomplish more, with less issues and drama than others. Is this real? Or simply navel gazing? I tend to think it's real.
I suspect it will always be a largely subjective measure mostly determined by the respect or accolades of one's peers or the satisfaction of one's target audience/customers.
I think StackExchange's "reputation" system is probably the most accurate discrete measure available.
Reputation on SE is very, very dependent on the amount of time you put in and your choice of which questions to answer. It's also somewhat zero-sum in a crowded field, as you need attention to get upvotes.
(I should know, I'm one of the 50 people on electronics.stackexchange with more than 10k rep, and no formal qualifications in electronics)
For me, StackExchange's 'reputation' is inversely correlated with that.
Don't want to attack the contributors, but honestly, the higher levels of reputation just either show me that he either has too much free time outside of work (valid, but doubtful) or they spend work time answering questions, which for me goes against the 10x productivity programmer mantra.
I think StackExchange's "reputation" system is probably the most accurate discrete measure available
I would be very hesitant to rely on any metrics coming out of SE. Consider their great programming survey this year, they say the average age of a programmer is 29. The US Department of Labor says it's 49.
There are a vast number of people out there, well over 90% of the programming industry I'll wager, who come into work at 9am, do good, solid work all day, on applications that run the real world, then go home at 5pm and get on with their lives, who never interact with SE et al at all.
>I would be very hesitant to rely on any metrics coming out of SE. Consider their great programming survey this year, they say the average age of a programmer is 29. The US Department of Labor says it's 49.
That doesn't mean they're both wrong. The two are just comparing different things. The SE programming survey included 157 countries, not just the US. It also doesn't only include full-time professional developers. 13.6% of respondents classified themselves as "Student". Only 66.3% of respondents listed themselves as "Employed full-time"
Indeed, what is programming talent? What is a 'good' programmer? What is a 10x rock star? These notions are similarly ill defined. I can think of at least 3 formulations of 'talent':
1. A developer who can craft an exquisite solution to a problem using the patterns of the domain and/or the idioms of the language.
2. A developer who puts in Heroic efforts to produce a lot of code in a short amount of timing, to meet business objectives.
3. A developer who is 'smart and gets things done'.
One can poke holes into any of these formulations; is the exquisite solution delivered in a reasonable amount of time? Is the quickly delivered code maintainable and extensible or a maintenance nightmare? Does the smart and get things done guy leave a spaghetti trail in his wake?
In the end, I think we've all noticed that some people tend to simply accomplish more, with less issues and drama than others. Is this real? Or simply navel gazing? I tend to think it's real.
Edit: spelling