This is a really interesting take on the Silver Bullet argument - Brooks is right that big gains in productivity are only gained by reducing accidental complexi

This is a really interesting take on the Silver Bullet argument - Brooks is right that big gains in productivity are only gained by reducing accidental complexity but he was wrong about how much accidental complexity there still is to reduce. I think most Software Engineers probably suffer from some cognitive bias in trying to estimate exactly how much accidental complexity exists that could be eventually removed. We tend to think about incremental improvements to tools and processes rather than thinking at a higher level about improving the overall process of translating business requirements into working software. Even with much better tooling and languages (i.e. #F, Git, AWS, etc) there's still a lot of fat that could be trimmed. I'm excited to see what the wold of low-code will do to our current assumptions about how much accidental complexity there actually is. Maybe projects like Dark[1] could actually achieve the order-of-magnitude gains that Brooks was convinced wouldn't be possible. Sure, there's no panacea, but maybe we're round the corner from a genuine "Silver Bullet" in the sense that Brooks actually meant. [1] - https://medium.com/darklang/the-design-of-dark-59f5d38e52d2 https://medium.com/darklang/the-design-of-dark-59f5d38e52d2