Write less code, be more responsible

This:

> I don’t really understand the, “more, better, faster,” cachet to be honest

And this:

> I’m working as a single solo developer

...I believe explain it all here. You likely are not beholden to PMs, CEOs and the like. Of course you can go at your own pace. I am actually puzzled that you don't understand that aspect yourself.

> The economics of throwing out 37k lines of code a week is… stupid in the extreme

Again, bosses. CEOs have 14 calls a week with potential prospects and sometimes want demos, sometimes they sign quickly and want a prototype, and sometimes they arrange a collab with a friend or family. Then 3 weeks later the whole thing falls apart and you have to throw it away because it's getting in the way of delivering what actually still pays the bills.

I am not the CEO. I try making his visions come true. I don't get to make the calls on whether 37k of lines will be quickly churned out and then deleted some weeks later.

I think your comment is overly focused only on the coding/programming aspect of things. We don't exist in a vacuum. May I ask how do you make your living? That might shed extra light on your trouble understanding the inevitable churn when writing code for money.

---

All of this does not even mention the fact that I 100% agree that less coding lines == less trouble. Code is generally a liability, I believe every mature dev understands that. But often we are not given a choice so we have to produce more code and periodically compress it / re-architect it (while never making the mistake of asking to be given time to do so because we never will).

I admire you for what you've created wrt Sumatra. It's an excellent piece of software. But, as a matter of principle, I refuse to knowingly contribute to codebases using AI to generate code, including drive-by hints, suggestions, etc.

You, or rather Claude, are not the first to solve this problem and there are examples of better solutions out there. Since you're willing to let Claude regurgitate other people's work, feel free to look it up yourself or have Claude do it for you.

> using an aphorism to make a point.

But your “aphorism” is not true. You made a claim that more developers make a project slower. And you pointed to TMMM in support of that claim.

Now you seem to be saying “I know this isn’t really true, but my point hinges on us pretending it is.”

> Let’s imagine we’re going to make a new operating system to compete with Linux.

This is a nonsensical question. “Would you rather be set up to fail with 10 engineers or 1000”? Your proposed scenario is that it’s not possible to succeed there is no choice to be made on technical merit.

> But which team should ship first? And keep shipping and release fastest?

Assuming you are referring to shipping after that initial month where we have failed, the clear option is the largest of the teams. A team of 10 will never replicate the Linux kernel in their lifetimes. The Linux kernel has something like 5000 active contributors.

> I’ve heard stories that it takes a long time to get small changes to production.

There are many reasons it’s slow to ship changes in a company like Google. This doesn’t change the fact that no one is building Chrome or Android with a team of ten.

> He didn’t say that.

Actually he did, or something very close to it.

Obviously SOMETIMES you can add more developers to a project to successfully speed it up, but Brooks point was that it can easily also have the opposite effect and slow the project down.

The main reason Brooks gives for this is the extra overhead you've just added to the project in terms of communications, management, etc. In fact increasing team size always makes the team less efficient - adds more overhead, and the question is whether the new person added adds enough value to offset or overcome this.

Most experienced developers realize this intuitively - always faster to have the smallest team of the best people possible.

Of course some projects are just so huge that a large team is unavoidable, but don't think you are going to get linear speedup by adding more people. A 20 person team will not be twice as fast as a 10 person team. This is the major point of the book, and the reason for the title "the mythical man month". The myth is that men and months can be traded off, such that a "100 man month" project that would take 10 men 10 months could therefore be accomplished in 1 month if you had a team of 100. The team of 100 may in fact take more than 10 months since you just just turned a smallish efficient team into a chaotic mess.

Adding an AI "team member" is of course a bit different to adding a human team member, but maybe not that different, and the reason is basically the same - there are negatives as well as positives to adding that new member, and it will only be a net win if the positives outweigh the negatives (extra layers of specifications/guardrails, interaction, babysitting and correction - knowing when context rot has set in and time to abort and reset, etc).

With AI, you are typically interactively "vibe coding", even if in responsible fashion with specifications and guardrails, so the "new guy" isn't working in parallel with you, but is rather taking up all your time, and now his/its prodigious code output needs reviewing by someone, unless you choose to omit that step.

I definitely feel like understanding the system is a big part of what makes it relatively easy to maintain/understand.

My game is just in my spare time while I'm looking for work and the scope of the project is small so that I can finish it, release it, and start working on the next one. I'm not trying to build an engine or anything. Just a game. Not even the best game I can make.

I can iterate on it fast because I know the structures. I can refactor it fast because I've built an intuition for a process over time that keeps code amenable to changes over time. I know I'm not going to make the right decisions at the start so I avoid committing to generalizations, etc.

Editing code is pretty fast for me. Again, years working with a particular setup. I still have expandable snippets, multi-cursor editing and a host of macros for common editing motions.

Checking changes... pretty fast. I'm getting to the point where I might invest in using dynamic reloading for my in-development builds. I suspect it will take a few hours to do at most. Not a big deal. For now I have a basic system that just watches for file changes and recompiles/re-runs the program.

In a different context, working on a team in a large multi-million line codebase... I dunno what other people find it's like but I've never found it terribly slow to write/edit code or ship features. I can usually knock most tasks out at a reasonable pace especially when my familiarity with the area of the code I'm working in increases. I usually find my priorities shift with the demands of users, the business, etc. Some times I work on shipping new features quick. Other times it's making sure what we ship the right things and done well so that we don't leak PII.

Either way... actually writing the code isn't the slowest part, in my experience. It's all the other stuff: the meetings, the design, maintenance, documentation, understanding the problem domain, actually shipping the code to production, etc that takes up the most time for me.