If there are developers out there doing work on the same level as Rembrandt or Bach then they are working in an entirely different domain. Personally, I don't think we have the ability to recognize these people and, if we did, there is no guarantee that their work would be applicable to business systems in the way that the "10x engineer" myth implies.
I hate the phrase, but exceptional software engineers "paint with code."
It seems to me that painters and composers create art that is appreciated much more widely and over a much more varied audience than software engineers. Given that the inner workings of software are visible to a much smaller audience, isn't it likely that their skills are being over-rated?
I think "10x developer" is a very ambiguous definition, and comparisons in other fields are confused because of this.
I'd rather use the adjective "elite". It's more intuitive and unambiguous.
Carmack is without doubt an elite engineer; his work, in my opinion, is on the same level as Bach's in his field.
Yes, absolutely. If you can create a simple, clean, extensible abstraction that hundreds of other engineers use to avoid recreating and testing functionality this could be considered 10x due to the leverage.
As long as a domain has virtually infinite solutions, it will inherently imply creativity and quality.
Even on systems with easy logical problems, as long as the architectural complexity is high enough (I guess we start from the tenths of thousands of lines?), surely there will be people who design better, safer and faster (and that will also learn faster).
So they will be definitely recognizable (whether it's "2x", "10x" or "100x"). On the other hand, people with such skills very likely won't work on those systems :-)
Einstein worked at a patent office, where he'd do in a short time what would require other clerks a full day of work. He was the equivalent of a "10x engineer"; he didn't work there for a very long time :-)
Yes, and if these things make you perform ten times better than your colleagues then you're a 10x. We don't judge people by their hypothetical potential (well actually we do, for a short while), but by their current performances.
It'd say it's more disrespectful/harmful to say that everyone is a Bach, a Rembrandt or an Einstein. It's not just a matter of studying and working, everyone hits a wall a some point, some way earlier than others. Your will to be better isn't enough.
Labels are not harmful as long as they're factual. My light bulb is less bright than the sun, I'm not as good as a painter as Rembrandt, that's the human condition and we have to accept these things. Saying they're harmful and that everyone can become anything they want is a fairytale.