3 ms·
I used to be a big pair programming zealot, but I've backed off, since I've seen it fail with so many people at so many places. Having said that, the times I've
by projectileboy 17y ago
I used to be a big pair programming zealot, but I've backed off, since I've seen it fail with so many people at so many places. Having said that, the times I've worked in good pair programming environments have been the happiest, most productive times of my life (at work, anyway).
So then, what constitutes "good"? This article seems to focus on the code, which I think can matter, but I believe is much less important than the people having the ability to pair effectively, which in my experience consists of two things: (1) the ability to clearly articulate what one is thinking, in real-time, and (2) the ability to allow your partner's ideas to be better than your own. It also helps if you don't get annoyed by someone asking you questions while you code, but that's less important, because you'll get over that if you and your coding partner have (1) and (2).
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoYour comment is better than the article. Thanks.
- askorkin 17y agoI agree with you, I suppose I tend to take those things for granted, possibly because I've been fortunate enough lately to work in environments where both 1) and 2) are pretty much a given (lucky me). Pair programming is an agile practice and in my experience it is a LOT easier to do agile when you have good people on your team, not just good developers, but good human beings.