I disagree that "we can always improve things". That only works in a few fields. When Tom Wolfe was finishing up a new novel, adding more writers wouldn't imp

I disagree that "we can always improve things". That only works in a few fields. When Tom Wolfe was finishing up a new novel, adding more writers wouldn't improve the story. When a cancer patient is undergoing chemo, adding more physicians this afternoon won't improve the outcome. Adding cooks to the kitchen of my favorite noodle shop isn't going to improve the noodles one bit. Adding more actors to a film's shoot schedule isn't going to make it go any faster. In all these cases, even if you gave me 100 more skilled people for free for a week, I'd tell you that we don't need them, and it would actually hurt us for them to participate. Changing the plan or going off-plan has a real cost. Mature fields like civil engineering have a great track record because they don't just let extra people make contributions at any point in the process. BTW, according to Wikiqote, the correct (and unabridged) quote is: "A work is never completed except by some accident such as weariness, satisfaction, the need to deliver, or death: for, in relation to who or what is making it, it can only be one stage in a series of inner transformations." For programming to be a mature field, "the need to deliver" must be a necessary component, and "satisfaction" should be the goal, not merely an "accident". We can't utilize the process of a 19th century French poet and expect to get results like 21st century civil engineers. This was a guy who (according to his Wikipedia article), "around 1898, he quit writing altogether, publishing not a word for nearly twenty years."