> Your comment reads very like: "So, I have no anecdotal evidence from my immediate peers that it can work so it must not work. You have offered me first hand a

> Your comment reads very like: "So, I have no anecdotal evidence from my immediate peers that it can work so it must not work. You have offered me first hand anecdotal evidence that it can, I shall ignore that." No, it's "I have strong first hand evidence from seeing the attempts at my and other work places that pair programming is not a slam dunk improvement for software development". > At this point, I have to wonder why you're even in this comment thread, since you seem so completely stuck and rigid in your beliefs. Back at you. I'm not the only one here with strong misgivings and counter examples. > But you're here adamantly proclaiming that it doesn't work and is a waste of time as if its some immutable truth when it really isn't, evidenced by the fact that it has worked for me and others. I stated that I don't care how others get their work done. You want to pair program? If you can maintain or exceed the expected productivity of the rest of the team, then you do you. What I strenuously object to is the heavy handed application of this "concept". > Also, your car analogy is invalid. Yours isn't much better. Rocks can certainly fly, if you provide enough force, but they don't do it easily and they don't do it well, and require a huge effort to make it happen. I wouldn't want to travel by flying rock.