The 10x developer is one of the most repeated and least understood ideas in our industry. It’s used to justify hiring decisions, set compensation bands, and influence entire management philosophies. But the source material, a 1968 study called “Exploratory experimental studies comparing online and offline programming performance” has been largely debunked when looking at individual developers working within a team or organization.

 

The other week I read Gergely Orosz’s excellent post on the state of the tech industry in 2026. In that post, several prominent developers share how they work with 5-10 parallel agents, each one running in a separate terminal tab. This is a trend that I think is about to enter the mainstream.

That trend also ties into a topic I’ve written about before: the cognitive cost of faster coding. Back then, I claimed that agentic coding is mentally expensive and more effortful than old-school manual coding. This time, I want to expand and revisit the human consequences of running five agents in parallel. I mean: what could possibly go wrong?

 

The title is not a joke. For those of you who know Sentry, you know we’ve been giving back to Open Source maintainers since our early days in whatever ways we could. But around five years ago we really started to give in a more meaningful way. This year we increased our budget from $750,000 to $1,000,000.

[–] [S] 48 points 5 months ago (6 children)

This quote from the article really sums it up:

And to be clear, I don’t care whether you typed the code yourself. I care whether you understood it before you shipped it. I care whether you can explain why the bug happened, why this fix is the right fix, what the model might have missed, and what would make you roll it back.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago

    Agreed though the article has this disclaimer:

    Before we dive into the code, I think it’s worth pointing out that the goal is largely to be immersive and expose some lore. I think this design and effect fit because of the theme and because it’s not for critical content. My point is that it’s just an aesthetic component for a game that makes this acceptable — I don’t think this is necessarily a good user experience for your every day website where there are stakes.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Though that quote is followed by this, which indicates at least five of those vulnerabilities were real:

    I searched the Linux kernel and found a total of five Linux vulnerabilities so far that Nicholas either fixed directly or reported to the Linux kernel maintainers, some as recently as last week:

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago*

    Your comment reminded me of this article, The Software Quality and Productivity Crisis Executives Won’t Address, which discusses the lack of technical leadership when it comes to tackling technical debt, and that the solution is usually a rewrite.

    Instead, most organisations don’t tackle technical debt until it causes an operational meltdown. At that point, they end up allocating 30–40% of their budget to massive emergency transformation programmes—double the recommended preventive investment (Oliver Wyman, 2024).

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago

    I have noticed the repository lacks CONTRIBUTING.md. If you want to set some rules about contributing, I would have added them there, instead of creating a Markdown file specific for agents. I'm very much of the philosophy that you should write documentation for humans, which has the added bonus that it will also be consumed by agents.

  • source
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›