As with most Agile claims, I'd like to see that proven first. Even then I might wonder whether it's the right thing for me, but at least we could have some numb

As with most Agile claims, I'd like to see that proven first. Even then I might wonder whether it's the right thing for me, but at least we could have some numbers how this works out in general. If you've got a high fault rate, two people working things out might improve things enough to be worth the while. Especially in a case were uncaught bugs are really band and/or your daily coding is an exercise in tedious input checking, c.f. some web sites and conventional GUIs. And even then I'd say that the occasional meeting plus a decent code review process would probably be as effective, without the hit in performance. Never mind the sheer annoyance a lot of people would feel having to "couple" all the time.