4 ms·
Pair programming can be really great. Or horrible. Depends entirely on the people. This would be good for code-walks too though. Instead of having to share you
by nixpulvis 11mo ago
Pair programming can be really great. Or horrible. Depends entirely on the people.
This would be good for code-walks too though. Instead of having to share your screen and hope the video comes through well. Everyone can follow along in the comfort of their own editor.
- davnicwil 11mo ago> code-walks it's probably subjective, but I find these collaboration features can be overused for this kind of thing. If someone is walking me through something, I just want to see what they see so I can focus entirely on what they're saying and no part of me is distracted by having to follow along or seeing other code. I know typically these collab modes have an auto follow feature, but it's not as simple as just read only video being streamed to you, there's loads more ways it can go wrong and add noise / distraction that provides no benefit.
- nixpulvis 11mo agoProblem is video is expensive and compression can get bad. I agree being able to see the pointer is important, since not everyone is good about moving the cursor around.
- verdverm 11mo agore: pair programming, the lion's share is moving to be with agents, not humans. I think the fundamental flaw that dooms this feature is non-developers. Do teams and orgs want more than one chat system? I suspect not. It will be very hard (impossible) to convince people who can pay back the VCs to switch zed as the basis for their chat for all employees. > video comes through well I cannot recall the last time resolution or latency was an issue (zoom/meet) > Everyone can follow along in the comfort of their own editor. With different screen resolutions, you cannot be sure everyone sees the same code. Video guarantees this