> Fred Brooks as usual stands the test of time.[...]I'd bring the argument against a Second-System
I'm confused. The GP appears to be saying that one should plan to build two systems - one as a proof-of-concept, and another (which is actually presented to most customers) in which one does things "the right way" based on learnings during that process - whereas you (and Fred[0]) seem to allude that the second system tends to be bloated and over-engineered. What am I missing?
Have you read the book? I'd recommend it!
https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~ltoma/teaching/cs340/spring0...
He's flattered that people still quote him, but also horrified that what he thought was his first, fledgling start in software project management is still quoted as start of the art. We haven't learned anything.
After Mythical Man Month there’s been other books (and talks), yes?
I’ve read The Phoenix Project (based on The Goal) and its sequels.
What should be on every EM’s shelf?
I was exaggerating a bit.
Brooks lamented that we've learned so little, that his observations stay relevant, instead of being superseded by something more systematic.
In contrast, if you were learning how to write a compiler or operating system today, you (hopefully!) wouldn't pick up a book published when the Mythical Man Month came out.
I've noticed lately that it's become less common someone in the room has read it when I mention a passage from it, be it management or other software devs. Not sure why but it used to be much more common that I'd bring the argument against a Second-System and at least one other person would recognise it, or the issues with communication channels between a larger group.
For any professional software developer out there who haven't read it, please do, it's a collection of wisdom from 50 years ago that still applies today.