I am also involved in the development of a second system in one way or other so I can appreciate your view point. What about this point of view. Software developer is rather considered as creator who enjoys his creation than an employee who do some mediocre work.. Especially when he is an architect . Every creation is painful and is born out of no mind, which will be normally simple and intelligent. It is actually an intellectual property of the person. The term Intellectual Property (IP) reflects the idea that its subject matter is the product of the intellect. The very reward of creation is the joy we get out of it. If it is frustrating then it is born out of mind. In this point of view is it not better to be caught in a trap…?

I don’t think Brooks is saying that a “second system” is inevitably a mistake (as he points out, an architect can’t just skip his second system). Nor is he necessarily just referring to a rewrite or other such second attempt at the same system. Much of the chapter talks more generally about an architect’s second “task”.

Instead, I think he’s just pointing out that what an architect thinks they have learnt from their first system can make them overly bold and can generally lead them astray when approaching their second system. In particular, they then have exactly one example to draw lessons from, and can’t tell what’s specific to that one example and what has a broader truth. We need to be aware of this and take it into account, both in terms of self-discipline and in how we manage projects (e.g. not regarding architects as fully competent until after they’ve worked on multiple systems – though nowadays I suspect the tendency is to regard people as senior achitects even before their first system).

In any case, however much I enjoy and admire Brooks’ book in its context, we shouldn’t blindly take all of it as an absolute gospel truch regardless of circumstances. For example, in those days the technology and requirements didn’t “churn” as quickly and there was a lot more similarity from one project to the next than I ever see today (though maybe that’s just me…). Some of the economic trade-offs might also be rather different now due to different tools and techniques (for example, the “extreme programming” movement is at least partly based on an explicit recognition of how modern approaches have changed these trade-offs).

To quote something else from the same period, and in keeping with your 42!,42!! post, the key is to always “Think”.

P.S: You should check how you associate “time” with your posts, because it seems that you are already October 22… and on my calendar it is only October 3 ;o)