Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [XP] Pair programming vs. Mentoring in a pair

Expand Messages
  • Martin Andrews
    ... The person I worked with wasn t dumb - but they did lack skills in the technology we were using. The experience also made me a better programmer - I had
    Message 1 of 79 , Apr 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]
      >
      > Responding to Martin Andrews (09:26 AM 4/2/2001 +1000):
      > >If working on a project as a developer (instead of as a mentor), I
      > >think I would find it frustrating to spend extended pair-programming
      > >time with other staff that have a large skill difference to me. I
      > >would like to be able to work with someone of similar skills where
      > >'drive' time was closer to 50/50.
      >
      > The dumbest person I have ever paired with made me a better
      > programmer. (Thanks, Chet.)
      >
      > Seriously. I'm not making that up, except for the part about Chet.

      The person I worked with wasn't 'dumb' - but they did lack skills in
      the technology we were using. The experience also made me a better
      programmer - I had to explain the technology in some detail and
      therefore had to understand it well.

      I think my experience just reinforced the idea of programmer rotation
      amongst pairs. After a period of time, I wanted to be at the keyboard
      more often. Unfortunately, I didn't have other staff to share the
      pairing with.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • billy@psisys01.nrlssc.navy.mil
      ... Absolutely. If all a person got out of studying XP was unit testing, automated testing, and (especially) test-first programming, their productivity would
      Message 79 of 79 , Apr 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        davechaplin@... wrote:

        > Responding to Ron Jeffries:
        > > Not in public. Anyone who has been around has seen teams differ by
        > > at least 10X, and probably has ideas as to why. I make no
        > > productivity claims for XP at all, at least not in terms of
        > > numbers. There's no way to know, AFAICS.

        > My personal experience is that by doing upfront testing and using
        > automated test harnesses you get a massive increase in productivity.
        > People spend more time building the new stuff, and less time fixing
        > what they have already apparently finished writing.

        Absolutely.

        If all a person got out of studying XP was unit testing, automated testing,
        and (especially) test-first programming, their productivity would almost
        have to improve.

        As far as "Silver Bullets" -- it seems that every year or so, there's a new
        methodology that promises to reduce defects, shorten delivery times,
        increase profits, and clean out that bottom left desk drawer that
        I'm afraid to look in anymore. One difference I see with XP is that
        although there *is* a coherent system, its elements (or at least some of
        them) are more or less decoupled. Certainly Continuous Testing,
        Simple Design, Refactoring, Continous Integration and the 40 hour week
        all stand on their own. In fact, I once thought I had invented
        Continuous testing/integration and Simple Design. I guess I should
        have written a book....

        --
        Billy Chambless
        Planning Systems Incorporated
        (228) 687-8745
        bchambless@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.