3 ms·

> The aphorism is a bit dated but rings true: you can’t add another developer and make the process go faster. It usually slows teams down. I've been doing this

> The aphorism is a bit dated but rings true: you can’t add another developer and make the process go faster. It usually slows teams down. I've been doing this for 30-years and this is another political slogan of sorts. this is true in every single imaginable job - new people slow you down, until they do not and become part of the well-oiled machine that is hopefully your team. not sure why people insist on saying this, it is like saying "read this book, says that that Sun will rise tomorrow morning" > I’ve seen it time and again: startups move from their market-fit phase into an operational excellence phase on the backing of VC funding and they start hiring a ton of people. Most of those developers are highly educated, specialized people with deep technical skills and they’re often put to work making the boxes more blue or sitting in meetings with PMs for hours. Teams slow down output when you add more people. I wasn't talking about startups or developers making boxes more blue, I was talking about personal experience. The bottleneck, if you are doing amazing shit and not burning some billionaries money on some silly "startup" is always the code which is why we hire developers to write the code. Everything else is just coming up with some silly unrelated examples - of course there are people (at every job again) doing nothing or menial tasks - this isn't what I was talking about. > You don’t have a quota. It’s not like you’ll have fewer units to sell if you don’t add that 30k lines of code by Friday. I do have customers that want features that would make their lives easier and are willing to handsomely pay for it, that good enough? > This is knowledge work. The work is understanding problems and knowing how to develop solutions to them. You add more people and you end up adding overhead. Communication, co-ordination, operations overhead. This is only on super shitty teams with super shitty co-workers (especially senior ones) and super shitty managers. I feel for the careers in this industry where this is/was the case. A whole lot of people are terrible at their jobs in places like this - a whole lot of people... > A well-sized team that has worked together a long time can outperform a massive team any day in my experience. a well-sized team was at one point (well-sized team - 1) and (well-sized team - 2) and (well-sized team - 3) and in the future if it is right team will be even more amazing as well (well-sized team + 1), (well-sized team + 2)

agentultra 6mo ago
If you’ve heard it a number of times and refuse to consider what people are saying then maybe I can’t help you. I’m talking from personal experience of well over twenty years as both a developer, and for a while, a manager. The slow part isn’t writing code. It’s shipping it. You can have every one vibe coding until their eyes bleed and you’ve drained their will to live. The slowest part will still be testing, verifying, releasing, and maintaining the ball of technical debt that’s been accumulating. You will still have to figure out what to ship, what to fix, what to rush out and what to hold out until it’s right, etc. The more people you have to slower that goes in my experience. AI tools don’t make that part faster.
- dpark 6mo ago
  > If you’ve heard it a number of times and refuse to consider what people are saying then maybe I can’t help you. What someone says “I’ve heard this a thousand times, but…”, it could be that the person is just stupidly obstinate but it could also mean that they have a considered opinion that it might benefit you to learn. “More people slow down projects” is an oversimplified version of the premise in The Mythical Man Month. If that simplistic viewpoint held, Google would employ a grand total of maybe a dozen engineers. What The Mythical Man Month says is that more engineers slow down a project that is already behind. i.e. You can’t fix a late project by adding more people. This does not mean that the amount of code/features/whatever a team can produce or ship is unrelated to the size of the team or the speed at which they can write code. Those are not statements made in the book.
  - agentultra 6mo ago
    Sure, I’m not writing a whole critical analysis of TMMM here and am using an aphorism to make a point. Let’s imagine we’re going to make a new operating system to compete with Linux. If we have a team of 10 developers we’re probably not going to finish that project in a month. If we’re going to add 100 developers we’re not going to finish that project in a month. If we add a thousand developers we’re still not going to finish that project in a month. But which team should ship first? And keep shipping and release fastest? My bet would be on the smaller team. The exact number of developers might vary but I know that if you go over a certain threshold it will slow down. People trying to understand management of software projects like to use analogies to factory lines or building construction to understand the systems and processes that produce software. Yet it’s not like adding more code per unit of time is adding anything to the process. Even adding more people to a factory line had diminishing returns in efficiency. There’s a sweet spot, I find. As for Google… it’s not a panacea of efficiency from what I hear. Though I don’t work there. I’ve heard stories that it takes a long time to get small changes to production. Maybe someone who does work there could step in and tell us what it’s like. As a rule though, I find that smaller teams with the right support, can ship faster and deliver higher quality results in the long run. My sample size isn’t large though. Maybe Windows is like the ultimate operating system that is fast, efficient, and of such high quality because they have so many engineers working on it.
deadbabe 6mo ago
When people say code is the bottleneck, they don’t always mean the lack of code: it’s also the accumulation of code, which becomes like plaque clogging your arteries. When you have too many people pumping out too much code, it can be the death of your startup. Startups have failed from writing way too much code.
- bdangubic 6mo ago
  amazing how many comments in these discussion talk about startups as if that is all there's to it, you either are at startup or you are plumber... [mind blown...]
Rury 6mo ago
> new people slow you down, until they do not and become part of the well-oiled machine that is hopefully your team This is true of training someone new to do a routine job. You spend some time teaching them, and they learning, and then that overhead of teaching/learning slowing you both down disappears. But it's a little different with knowledge work, as the constant changes and creation of stuff means other team members have to constantly learn what you changed/created if they are to do anything with it. So you never reach this "well-oiled" state, unless you divy up the tasks so that the amount of information you need to deal amongst each other is minimal and unchanged. This principle even holds true in multithreaded programming as to performance, in that constant sharing and changing of data between threads can actually hurt performance in comparison to a single threaded process.

agentultra 6mo ago

If you’ve heard it a number of times and refuse to consider what people are saying then maybe I can’t help you. I’m talking from personal experience of well over twenty years as both a developer, and for a while, a manager. The slow part isn’t writing code. It’s shipping it. You can have every one vibe coding until their eyes bleed and you’ve drained their will to live. The slowest part will still be testing, verifying, releasing, and maintaining the ball of technical debt that’s been accumulating. You will still have to figure out what to ship, what to fix, what to rush out and what to hold out until it’s right, etc. The more people you have to slower that goes in my experience. AI tools don’t make that part faster.

dpark 6mo ago
> If you’ve heard it a number of times and refuse to consider what people are saying then maybe I can’t help you. What someone says “I’ve heard this a thousand times, but…”, it could be that the person is just stupidly obstinate but it could also mean that they have a considered opinion that it might benefit you to learn. “More people slow down projects” is an oversimplified version of the premise in The Mythical Man Month. If that simplistic viewpoint held, Google would employ a grand total of maybe a dozen engineers. What The Mythical Man Month says is that more engineers slow down a project that is already behind. i.e. You can’t fix a late project by adding more people. This does not mean that the amount of code/features/whatever a team can produce or ship is unrelated to the size of the team or the speed at which they can write code. Those are not statements made in the book.
- agentultra 6mo ago
  Sure, I’m not writing a whole critical analysis of TMMM here and am using an aphorism to make a point. Let’s imagine we’re going to make a new operating system to compete with Linux. If we have a team of 10 developers we’re probably not going to finish that project in a month. If we’re going to add 100 developers we’re not going to finish that project in a month. If we add a thousand developers we’re still not going to finish that project in a month. But which team should ship first? And keep shipping and release fastest? My bet would be on the smaller team. The exact number of developers might vary but I know that if you go over a certain threshold it will slow down. People trying to understand management of software projects like to use analogies to factory lines or building construction to understand the systems and processes that produce software. Yet it’s not like adding more code per unit of time is adding anything to the process. Even adding more people to a factory line had diminishing returns in efficiency. There’s a sweet spot, I find. As for Google… it’s not a panacea of efficiency from what I hear. Though I don’t work there. I’ve heard stories that it takes a long time to get small changes to production. Maybe someone who does work there could step in and tell us what it’s like. As a rule though, I find that smaller teams with the right support, can ship faster and deliver higher quality results in the long run. My sample size isn’t large though. Maybe Windows is like the ultimate operating system that is fast, efficient, and of such high quality because they have so many engineers working on it.

deadbabe 6mo ago

When people say code is the bottleneck, they don’t always mean the lack of code: it’s also the accumulation of code, which becomes like plaque clogging your arteries. When you have too many people pumping out too much code, it can be the death of your startup. Startups have failed from writing way too much code.

bdangubic 6mo ago
amazing how many comments in these discussion talk about startups as if that is all there's to it, you either are at startup or you are plumber... [mind blown...]

Rury 6mo ago

> new people slow you down, until they do not and become part of the well-oiled machine that is hopefully your team This is true of training someone new to do a routine job. You spend some time teaching them, and they learning, and then that overhead of teaching/learning slowing you both down disappears. But it's a little different with knowledge work, as the constant changes and creation of stuff means other team members have to constantly learn what you changed/created if they are to do anything with it. So you never reach this "well-oiled" state, unless you divy up the tasks so that the amount of information you need to deal amongst each other is minimal and unchanged. This principle even holds true in multithreaded programming as to performance, in that constant sharing and changing of data between threads can actually hurt performance in comparison to a single threaded process.