3 ms·

The number of channels is exponential, that's just Metcalfe's law. The ability to suss-out meaning behind those channels and come to a shared understanding pus

The number of channels is exponential, that's just Metcalfe's law. The ability to suss-out meaning behind those channels and come to a shared understanding pushes it to factorial. If A is speaking to B and C, A needs to also think about what communication is happening between B and C, and this is different to what B knows about C and C knows about B. In a carefully balanced classroom you might manage to get everyone knowing the same things, and this will allow knowledge to scale. Think about how much better TV got once they knew that viewers would watch every episode. What happens in software is that specialization quickly comes into play such that this is impossible in any organization that doesn't use mob programming. Other people might as well be speaking a different language. Next time you are in a Sprint meeting, think about how much you don't understand. Even as the team lead or architect who designs the entire system and whose job it is to understand everything it will be a shocking amount - it's black boxes all the way down. You'll claim that you can't know everything and that anyone who tries will fail. And this is made worse as the only true way to learn something is to do it, and if you aren't actually challenging yourself on something, anything you learn without doing will just fade away - as Spaced Repetition shows. The bigger the team, the bigger the software, the more inevitable the collapse.

pjscott 4y ago
> The number of channels is exponential, that's just Metcalfe's law. Metcalfe's law is quadratic rather than exponential -- O(n^2), not O(2^n). And if n people all need to be aware of communication happening between every pair of them (which is a worst-case), then that should just add a factor of n, bringing it up to cubic. (On an unrelated and less pedantically nitpicky note, one of the most valuable professional skills I've developed is an ability and willingness to dive into black boxes. It's remarkable how many bugs arise from the interaction of two or more pieces of software with no overlap between their developers. Debugging those can involve a long, agonizing back-and-forth between people who know how X works and people who know how Y works -- or it can be over in a jiffy if you can quickly familiarize yourself with the basic internal workings of both. Past a certain point nobody can know everything, it's true, but this doesn't need to be as crippling for productivity as a lot of people allow it to be.)
- ItsMonkk 4y ago
  One of the surprises I got when doing that was realizing that Y's code was terrible because of how X was interacting with it, and a rewrite of X allowed a rewrite of Y, and I was able to delete half the code in each. This has occurred countless times. But that doesn't stop black-boxes from being created faster than I can fix them, unfortunately.

pjscott 4y ago

> The number of channels is exponential, that's just Metcalfe's law. Metcalfe's law is quadratic rather than exponential -- O(n^2), not O(2^n). And if n people all need to be aware of communication happening between every pair of them (which is a worst-case), then that should just add a factor of n, bringing it up to cubic. (On an unrelated and less pedantically nitpicky note, one of the most valuable professional skills I've developed is an ability and willingness to dive into black boxes. It's remarkable how many bugs arise from the interaction of two or more pieces of software with no overlap between their developers. Debugging those can involve a long, agonizing back-and-forth between people who know how X works and people who know how Y works -- or it can be over in a jiffy if you can quickly familiarize yourself with the basic internal workings of both. Past a certain point nobody can know everything, it's true, but this doesn't need to be as crippling for productivity as a lot of people allow it to be.)

ItsMonkk 4y ago
One of the surprises I got when doing that was realizing that Y's code was terrible because of how X was interacting with it, and a rewrite of X allowed a rewrite of Y, and I was able to delete half the code in each. This has occurred countless times. But that doesn't stop black-boxes from being created faster than I can fix them, unfortunately.