Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Optimization by programmers (was: Styles of addressing)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 09:17:48 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <86h5jqv68j.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <hdjmS.2$4Fj3.0@fx21.iad> <1788467534-5857@newsgrouper.org> <EllmS.3$4Fj3.1@fx21.iad> <1788484298-5857@newsgrouper.org> <1788570532-5857@newsgrouper.org> <i%enS.772$eXV3.329@fx39.iad> <117juut$2erud$1@dont-email.me> <117p8dq$3f0og$1@paganini.bofh.team> <117pq4r$gi10$1@dont-email.me> <117thvb$1ocse$1@dont-email.me> <2026Sep10.192237@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <1736alhffrj7iuhfsesdo31bofc0m8pr12@4ax.com> <2026Sep11.083321@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <plf9al1ferjfbc63jo7du39lli75n9m4sa@4ax.com> <11834sf$3jups$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 16:17:49 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="2707097"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4j2iNLAx25a15lIJmcA1qEtgSXdbV0dM="; posting-host="d22a44f9db2d80b4aae7023976fc11e4"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KgjvGlVufrIgjni/aENqiplQqfI= sha1:JhARMHTqtyM+V/f6OXBf3J9kHkw= sha256:dkN7ur8IiV1F4kFJtqXgEZz+cEEjXuEDPbYmQgVJ3ck= sha1:hPCz1qE99YofSFEKDhFeEckJYlw= sha256:2oxiNBqSNPP/71dxtAYXHu4mtl3/Jx7wVkC+ZMPyn3A=
Xref: csiph.com comp.arch:118043

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

[...]

> Brooks quoted a factor of 10 in productivity between individual
> programmers in the 1960s, I suspect that gap has widened a lot
> since then but haven't looked for literature.

Several comments.

First the study cited very likely included a fair number of
subjects, almost certainly at least double digits.  It seems
probable that the distribution roughly resembled a bell
curve, so most of the people being measured fell in a range
of roughly 2.5 to one.

Second since the study was done in the 1960s, there is a good
chance that most of the programming being done was done in
assembly language.  I suspect assembly tends give a (slightly)
larger range than programming in a higher level language (and
yes, even in C).

Third there was very little in the way of educational resources
for software development in the 1960s.  Probably the gap has
narrowed as better and more widespread as education in computer
science has proliferated.

No doubt there are significant differences in the results of
different software developers.  But we are a long way from
what was being done in the 1960s.