8 ms·

This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. In fact it is pretty much the opposite of the theses in Fred Brooks' "Mythical man month". I'm not saying Brooks is 100

This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. In fact it is pretty much the opposite of the theses in Fred Brooks' "Mythical man month". I'm not saying Brooks is 100% correct, but his observations are close to what I am seeing in the field.

pink_duck 9y ago
I wouldn't consider my claim any more unsubstantiated than other observations made by a developer, for instance you. I haven't read the book that you refer to, but it seems like Brooks's law (which according to Wikipedia is the central theme of the book) is talking about already late projects. For those, or any already ongoing project, I agree that adding more people will require ramp up time, but I am not talking about late projects alone. I think that for development in general, using something like pair programming instead of the lone, rock star developer, will lead to better code in the end (https://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/Papers/XPSardinia.PDF https://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/Papers/XPSardinia....). Further, his second point about communication issues is to some extent proving my, and michaelchisari's point. Communication is a skill that is essential, but not stressed enough. If people were better at "communicate complex ideas in accessible ways", as michaelchisari originally put it, then I think it's likely that Brooks' wouldn't have the second argument to support his law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law). Essentially, I think it comes down to where we work, what we assume about a project, and how the issues in these projects are best tackled. At my work, better communication would have lead to less work in the long run. This because team leads couldn't clearly state their requirements, the different parties thought they agreed, and work was made that wasn't originally intended by team leads. Moreover, no one that holds a senior position is willing to acknowledge that these communication issues often are two way streets and that they are equally responsible for the miscommunications that happen. They also talk badly about others and have a serious case of hubris, which means that other peoples opinions are looked down upon or sometimes not even listened to. Basically lacking a lot of the skills that michaelchisari originally listed. I hope that this clears out any "unsubstantiated" parts of my original rant for you.

pink_duck 9y ago

I wouldn't consider my claim any more unsubstantiated than other observations made by a developer, for instance you. I haven't read the book that you refer to, but it seems like Brooks's law (which according to Wikipedia is the central theme of the book) is talking about already late projects. For those, or any already ongoing project, I agree that adding more people will require ramp up time, but I am not talking about late projects alone. I think that for development in general, using something like pair programming instead of the lone, rock star developer, will lead to better code in the end (https://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/Papers/XPSardinia.PDF https://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/Papers/XPSardinia....). Further, his second point about communication issues is to some extent proving my, and michaelchisari's point. Communication is a skill that is essential, but not stressed enough. If people were better at "communicate complex ideas in accessible ways", as michaelchisari originally put it, then I think it's likely that Brooks' wouldn't have the second argument to support his law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law). Essentially, I think it comes down to where we work, what we assume about a project, and how the issues in these projects are best tackled. At my work, better communication would have lead to less work in the long run. This because team leads couldn't clearly state their requirements, the different parties thought they agreed, and work was made that wasn't originally intended by team leads. Moreover, no one that holds a senior position is willing to acknowledge that these communication issues often are two way streets and that they are equally responsible for the miscommunications that happen. They also talk badly about others and have a serious case of hubris, which means that other peoples opinions are looked down upon or sometimes not even listened to. Basically lacking a lot of the skills that michaelchisari originally listed. I hope that this clears out any "unsubstantiated" parts of my original rant for you.