2 ms·

I'd be cautious to take a 20-year project with only a single developer the entire time as an example for other projects that are not that. But the particular a

I'd be cautious to take a 20-year project with only a single developer the entire time as an example for other projects that are not that. But the particular advantages of a single-developer project are worth pointing out; I do think you can "get away" with a lot of... things that would be messiness on a multi-developer project, but aren't on a single developer project when they match whatever predilections of the single developer. There are real "organizational" costs to adding more developers, with the biggest spike at adding a second. There are also obviously disadvantages and limitations to having only one developer. (in this case, not even only one developer "at a time", literally only one developer over the lifetime of a project that's lasted longer than most still-alive software projects!)

chii 5y ago
But the other side of the argument is that the game is amazingly complex, and this level of complexity may not be possible if you add in a 2nd developer - their vision would conflict, or compromises given early on that prevents future complexity to be added. AKA, a 20 year project with 1 developer could take more than 20 years with two (to reach the same level of complexity)!
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Right, my point was meant to be that some things are indeed possible with a single developer that aren't with a team and that adding more developers adds organizational challenges. (But there are of course other things not possible with a single developer). I agree that there are advantages to a single developer project that I don't see talked about a lot.