←back to thread

Be Aware of the Makefile Effect

(blog.yossarian.net)
431 points thunderbong | 3 comments | 11 Jan 25 04:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.708s | source
Show context
mianos ◴[11 Jan 25 07:31 UTC] No.42664066[source]▶
I have an alternate theory: about 10% of developers can actually start something from scratch because they truly understand how things work (not that they always do it, but they could if needed). Another 40% can get the daily job done by copying and pasting code from local sources, Stack Overflow, GitHub, or an LLM—while kinda knowing what’s going on. That leaves 50% who don’t really know much beyond a few LeetCode puzzles and have no real grasp of what they’re copying and pasting.

Given that distribution, I’d guess that well over 50% of Makefiles are just random chunks of copied and pasted code that kinda work. If they’re lifted from something that already works, job done—next ticket.

I’m not blaming the tools themselves. Makefiles are well-known and not too verbose for smaller projects. They can be a bad choice for a 10,000-file monster—though I’ve seen some cleanly written Makefiles even for huge projects. Personally, it wouldn’t be my first choice. That said, I like Makefiles and have been using them on and off for at least 30 years.

replies(7): >>42664103 #>>42664461 #>>42664526 #>>42664536 #>>42664757 #>>42672850 #>>42676540 #
f1shy ◴[11 Jan 25 09:20 UTC] No.42664536[source]▶
I would just change the percentages, but is about as true as it gets.
replies(1): >>42665361 #
1. mianos ◴[11 Jan 25 12:13 UTC] No.42665361[source]▶
I’d be curious to hear your ratio. It really varies. In some small teams with talented people, there are hardly any “fake” developers. But in larger companies, they can make up a huge chunk.

Where I am now, it’s easily over 50%, and most of the real developers have already left.

PS: The fakes aren’t always juniors. Sometimes you have junior folks who are actually really good—they just haven’t had time yet to discover what they don’t know. It’s often absolutely clear that certain juniors will be very good just from a small contribution.

replies(1): >>42665716 #
2. f1shy ◴[11 Jan 25 13:27 UTC] No.42665716[source]▶
My personal experience: - 5% geniuses. This are people who are passionate about what they do, they are always up to date. Typically humble, not loud people. - 15% good, can do it properly. Not passionate, but at least have a strong sense of responsibility. Want to do “the right thing” or do it right. Sometimes average intelligence, but really committed. - 80% I would not hire. People who talk a lot, and know very little. Probably do the work just because they need the money.

That applies for doctors, contractors, developers, taxi drivers, just about anything and everything. Those felt percentages had been consistent across 5 countries, 3 continents and 1/2 a century of life

PS: results are corrected for seniority. Even in the apprentice level I could tell who was in each category.

replies(1): >>42669625 #
3. mianos ◴[11 Jan 25 22:56 UTC] No.42669625[source]▶
From my 40 years in the field, I see much the same trend. I wouldn’t call 5% of developers “genius”—maybe 1% are true geniuses. Those folks can be an order of magnitude better at certain tasks—doing things no one else can—but only within a limited sphere. They also bring their own baggage, like unique personalities. Still, I believe there’s always room for genius on a big team, even with all the complications.

Typically, upper management wants smooth, steady output. But the better your people are, the bumpier that output gets—and those “one-percenters” can produce some pretty extreme spikes. If you think of it like a graph, the area under the curve (the total productivity) can be way bigger for a spiky output than for a flat, low-level one. So even if those spikes look messy, they often deliver a ton of long-term value.