4 ms·

I'd like to see this model work but I predict it won't. For the same reason you don't see 83 collaborators in a painting.

• eth 13y ago
  You may be surprised about how many people are involved in art/paintings, at last in the "contemporary art" era. Damien Hurst and others collaborate with (or employ) teams of artists to complete their work. Related reading: "The $12 million Stuffed Shark" by Don Thompson. Sidenote aside, I tend to be bearish on Assembly too, but I'd also love for them to prove us wrong. edit: grammatical things.
• bitsweet 13y ago
  Interesting analogy. I'm not sure the process to create a software product and to create paintings share much though...building a successful software product is inherently a team effort. You may have a few leaders influencing the direction but every successful product I've worked on depended on good decisions made by the whole team.
  • read 13y ago
    A more relaxed analogy to a music band has often come to mind. There's certainly a place in the world for a successful 83-piece orchestra but the piece is mostly written by a single composer. Plus, concerts most people go to today are to see smaller bands. I did notice a strange thing about my earlier comment though. When I read an HN article in the morning I'm much more apt to write a comment or response. An argument seems to be quickly evaluated based on its feasibility rather than how rewarding it is. It's the opposite in the evenings. As a model at least, it kind of explains why I'm writing such a thoughtful explanation tonight, after having been downvoted without an explanation that morning.