Pair Programming Considered
2012-03-04 03:13:12.355372+01 by Dan Lyke 5 comments
[ related topics: Software Engineering ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-04 14:47:16.54204+01 by: meuon
Nice article with sane thoughts towards the end. I really liked: "But insisting on 100 percent pairing is mindless dogma, and like all mindless dogma, ultimately counterproductive.". Which applies to almost all of an MBA's thoughts on anything technical.
#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-04 16:39:43.286226+01 by: DaveP
Huh. Everybody's different, and so are their needs.
Maybe I'm just lucky in the places I've chosen to work, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-05 08:08:49.782416+01 by: ebwolf
Sounds like someone is coming to the conclusion that Ed Yourdon, in Peopleware, knew what he was talking about.
I've worked in paired and non-paired arrangements. I will say that I am more creative unpaired but I get a hell of a lot when I get to pair with a better programmer.
#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-05 17:30:16.203317+01 by: Dan Lyke
I still go back to the structure proposed by Brooks in Mythical Man Month![[Wiki]](/adbanners/lookingglass.png){kind=small}
as a strong one. Alas, it seems like CS is a matter of each generation re-learning the lessons of the previous generation, rather than passing knowledge along.
#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-06 01:57:51.797045+01 by: DaveP
There's a quote I like: "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes." - Richard Hamming
Turns out work is talking about switching to an "open floor plan." Keep the references coming, please.