[m0nastic]

Right, but here's my problem with that:

I understand that the reason the analogy has become popular is because at some point, an idiot manager looked at a project plan, saw that the project was supposed to take (let's say) 6 months, and said "Hey, if we increase the number of developers from 2 to 6, that means it will only take 2 months."

So I get why it's easy to respond with "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month."

But let's say that instead the project plan said that it was going to take 6 months, and there was 1 developer on the project. It's absolutely likely that adding an additional number of developers can shave some time off that project (not inversely proportional to the number of developers you add, and not in every single circumstance, but I'd argue for the overwhelming majority of projects).

The analogy suggests that no part of project development can be parallelized, which to me just seems like shitty management of the project.

[michaelpinto]

The problem with the 6 months 1 programmer vs 1 month 6 programmers is that the minute you have more than one programmer they have to have an architecture that works together plus take time to communicate with each other — and then add to that the concept of a "critical path" i.e. that one programmer may not be able to start something until another programmer is done.

Although in my professional experience the idea of adding more programmers is always suggested by the client about a week before the project is due!!!

PS If you had to live through about ten of these clients you'd have the same religious feelings that I do for the Mythical Man Month.