> I assume you haven't read The Mythical Man-Month[0]?
Actually, I have read Brooks' seminal work.
> Your emphasis that surgeons "heavily rely on the surgical team" is just as important to Brooks' beliefs, in that the "Chief Programmer" is only able to do what they do via the support of the team.
What Brooks described as "Chief Programmer" would now be called an "Architect" or "Principal Engineer", amongst other similar titles. Programmers at that time defined and verified their solutions before submitting them to be "encoded." This task was typically performed by "coders," being the people who transcribed programs into punch cards (or equivalent) for execution. The role of "coder" has long since been eliminated by the ability of programmers to encode their solutions themselves.
>> I hate the idea of giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team. Yes, junior members will often have more grunt work, but they should also be given many interesting tasks to help them grow.
> The author clearly sees less experienced programmers as mentees, rather than just some grunts whose work is beneath them.
This is not clear to me at all. How does "giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team" convey a mentor/mentee relationship and not exactly what the author states? To be exact, the author explicitly identifies a class of team members as being "lower-status."
> The analogy may not be perfect, but their message about "AI coding tools" should be valued without judgement (and without accusations of egocentric thinking).
Anytime someone equates "junior members" to "lower-status members" and uses self-aggrandizement to describe their role in an effort, I am going to call that out using the most charitable description I can - a purely egocentric perspective.
Actually, I have read Brooks' seminal work.
> Your emphasis that surgeons "heavily rely on the surgical team" is just as important to Brooks' beliefs, in that the "Chief Programmer" is only able to do what they do via the support of the team.
What Brooks described as "Chief Programmer" would now be called an "Architect" or "Principal Engineer", amongst other similar titles. Programmers at that time defined and verified their solutions before submitting them to be "encoded." This task was typically performed by "coders," being the people who transcribed programs into punch cards (or equivalent) for execution. The role of "coder" has long since been eliminated by the ability of programmers to encode their solutions themselves.
>> I hate the idea of giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team. Yes, junior members will often have more grunt work, but they should also be given many interesting tasks to help them grow.
> The author clearly sees less experienced programmers as mentees, rather than just some grunts whose work is beneath them.
This is not clear to me at all. How does "giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team" convey a mentor/mentee relationship and not exactly what the author states? To be exact, the author explicitly identifies a class of team members as being "lower-status."
> The analogy may not be perfect, but their message about "AI coding tools" should be valued without judgement (and without accusations of egocentric thinking).
Anytime someone equates "junior members" to "lower-status members" and uses self-aggrandizement to describe their role in an effort, I am going to call that out using the most charitable description I can - a purely egocentric perspective.