5 ms·

> I'd say it's more like having a second pair of eyes while you're doing a tricky reversing maneuver. I’ve always liked the rally racing driver/navigator analo

by toqy 5y ago

> I'd say it's more like having a second pair of eyes while you're doing a tricky reversing maneuver. I’ve always liked the rally racing driver/navigator analogy for explaining pair programming. It tends to go better if you generally follow those roles when doing it too.

watwut 5y ago
I don't think that is good analogy. Driving race with driver and navigator are in completely different then anything related to programming or even pair programming. That analogy is just yet another way how to shut up people who dont like the process.
- travisjungroth 5y ago
  The way some people pair is really more similar to rally driving than you give it credit. I hate backseat driver style pair programming. Strong-style is very different and more like right-seat (I’m in the US, so let’s say not-driver seat) driving. https://llewellynfalco.blogspot.com/2014/06/llewellyns-strong-style-pairing.html?m=1 https://llewellynfalco.blogspot.com/2014/06/llewellyns-stron...
- toqy 5y ago
  > That analogy is just yet another way how to shut up people who dont like the process. In that case explaining why you like anything is a way to shut people up who don't
  - watwut 5y ago
    > In that case explaining why you like anything is a way to shut people up who don't No. It is just that specifically agile has a way to responding to people who dont like something with very very handwavy explanations that feel good, but dont really mean anything. Explaining why you personally like something is entirely different kind of communication. Explaining why you think something works well is also different. But, going into "this makes sense, because two people make sense in rally racing" is neither of those. Why rally racing and not any of the other races where competitors are alone? Why not soccer team for that matter? That seems closer to development then any vehicle racing anyway.
    - projektfu 5y ago
      > Why not soccer team for that matter? That seems closer to development then any vehicle racing anyway. Perhaps unintentionally, a good analogy for traditional software teams. Eleven players, one or two stars, the other players mostly looking good because they can pass the ball to the top players. In the end, all analogies suck. Pair programming is a pretty unique situation in the workplace, it works great for some people, others will never like it. It worked for me because I was kept on task. It may have slowed down the top performer but that person appreciated the company. Overall I think it made our team of 8 at the time more productive than they’d have been with separate assignments, and it really helped with team cohesion.
      - watwut 5y ago
        It was not unintentional. It does fit better and has no pair programming. But, the non star soccer players in competitive teams are significantly better then what you imply. And do way more work and have way more knowledge.
    - travisjungroth 5y ago
      > Why rally racing and not any of the other races where competitors are alone? Why not soccer team for that matter? That seems closer to development then any vehicle racing anyway. There seems to be two directions of analogies here. One is arguing from subject to analog. “Programming is like rally car driving so we should act like they do.” Pretty crummy argument. I’d have no answer to your “why rally car?” question. The other direction is explaining from subject to analog. “Strong-style pair programming is like rally car driving.” There’s much less of a claim here. I’m just saying they have enough shared attributes that I can map how they’re similar and you may find that useful for understanding. So why rally cars? Because that’s the context that has the most similar method as the one I’m talking about (not that it’s the most similar context). In the latter case, the claim of fitness is separate from the analogy. “This method is useful. It’s like one rally car drivers use”. There’s no “because” in there.
      - watwut 5y ago

by toqy 5y ago

watwut 5y ago

I don't think that is good analogy. Driving race with driver and navigator are in completely different then anything related to programming or even pair programming. That analogy is just yet another way how to shut up people who dont like the process.

travisjungroth 5y ago
The way some people pair is really more similar to rally driving than you give it credit. I hate backseat driver style pair programming. Strong-style is very different and more like right-seat (I’m in the US, so let’s say not-driver seat) driving. https://llewellynfalco.blogspot.com/2014/06/llewellyns-strong-style-pairing.html?m=1 https://llewellynfalco.blogspot.com/2014/06/llewellyns-stron...
toqy 5y ago
> That analogy is just yet another way how to shut up people who dont like the process. In that case explaining why you like anything is a way to shut people up who don't
- watwut 5y ago
  > In that case explaining why you like anything is a way to shut people up who don't No. It is just that specifically agile has a way to responding to people who dont like something with very very handwavy explanations that feel good, but dont really mean anything. Explaining why you personally like something is entirely different kind of communication. Explaining why you think something works well is also different. But, going into "this makes sense, because two people make sense in rally racing" is neither of those. Why rally racing and not any of the other races where competitors are alone? Why not soccer team for that matter? That seems closer to development then any vehicle racing anyway.
  - projektfu 5y ago
    > Why not soccer team for that matter? That seems closer to development then any vehicle racing anyway. Perhaps unintentionally, a good analogy for traditional software teams. Eleven players, one or two stars, the other players mostly looking good because they can pass the ball to the top players. In the end, all analogies suck. Pair programming is a pretty unique situation in the workplace, it works great for some people, others will never like it. It worked for me because I was kept on task. It may have slowed down the top performer but that person appreciated the company. Overall I think it made our team of 8 at the time more productive than they’d have been with separate assignments, and it really helped with team cohesion.
    - watwut 5y ago
      It was not unintentional. It does fit better and has no pair programming. But, the non star soccer players in competitive teams are significantly better then what you imply. And do way more work and have way more knowledge.
  - travisjungroth 5y ago
    > Why rally racing and not any of the other races where competitors are alone? Why not soccer team for that matter? That seems closer to development then any vehicle racing anyway. There seems to be two directions of analogies here. One is arguing from subject to analog. “Programming is like rally car driving so we should act like they do.” Pretty crummy argument. I’d have no answer to your “why rally car?” question. The other direction is explaining from subject to analog. “Strong-style pair programming is like rally car driving.” There’s much less of a claim here. I’m just saying they have enough shared attributes that I can map how they’re similar and you may find that useful for understanding. So why rally cars? Because that’s the context that has the most similar method as the one I’m talking about (not that it’s the most similar context). In the latter case, the claim of fitness is separate from the analogy. “This method is useful. It’s like one rally car drivers use”. There’s no “because” in there.
    - watwut 5y ago