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.
> 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 :|
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.
Fortunately for us programming has been and always will be about the transformation of text into other text with a context sensitive grammar. Something that can't be automated and will always fail. Usually with people dying as the catalyst for on-shoring jobs again.
There's a reason why developers move to one of a handful of cities to be productive.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/37-percent-of-silicon-val...
That is literally what the grandparent poster said, and matches the first two definitions I can find on Google.
Personally, I often think of this example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3033446
It's really interesting to see how both sides approach the problem (without rushing it), but only one of them solves it. That certainly counts as a 10x difference?
> "10x engineer" is a marketing gimmick used to gain leverage in various ways, IMO.
I've been following the discussion, and I think that "10x is a lie" has itself become a dangerous meme. It's already hard to tell some of my clients that developer quality matters, that hiring cheap developers en masse is pointless if they can't reliably fizzbuzz. Now Developer Twitter decides to proudly proclaim that everyone is equally capable as a developer, except some of them are toxic jerks. Sigh.