4 ms·

> 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 u

by 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
    > 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 It is fair to guess that nearly no one here ever sat in rally car. We know it has navigátor, but we don't actually know what navigator exactly does. And I genuinely don't see many similarities. It seem to be more about split second decision making in situation where you need to speed up or slow down toward turn.
    - travisjungroth 5y ago
      You don’t need to have sat in a rally car. The split second decision making is the context, not the method. The context doesn’t have to match perfectly. They just share the attribute of “high cognitive load”. Did you read the link I posted? The essence of the idea is you have one person who takes physical action, makes small decisions and take orders. That person is called “driver”. You have another person who makes larger decisions and gives orders. That person is called “navigator”. The dynamic I just described is true of rally car driving and strong style pair programming. It’s not true for most pair programming or most other types of driving.

by 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
  > 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 It is fair to guess that nearly no one here ever sat in rally car. We know it has navigátor, but we don't actually know what navigator exactly does. And I genuinely don't see many similarities. It seem to be more about split second decision making in situation where you need to speed up or slow down toward turn.
  - travisjungroth 5y ago
    You don’t need to have sat in a rally car. The split second decision making is the context, not the method. The context doesn’t have to match perfectly. They just share the attribute of “high cognitive load”. Did you read the link I posted? The essence of the idea is you have one person who takes physical action, makes small decisions and take orders. That person is called “driver”. You have another person who makes larger decisions and gives orders. That person is called “navigator”. The dynamic I just described is true of rally car driving and strong style pair programming. It’s not true for most pair programming or most other types of driving.