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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... An interesting notion. I ve been feeling an article coming on for a while now, with a title like How good do you want to be? It will try to talk about
    Message 1 of 79 , Apr 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Responding to Kenneth Tyler (08:16 PM 4/1/2001 -0700):
      >..my father always said, hire attitude, skills can always been
      >learned...what I find essential is someone who is willing to work uphill,
      >regardless of skill....i had one person i was teaching say after about a
      >year, i don't want to learn something new all the time, i want to get a job
      >where they will pay me for doing something i already know how to do...

      An interesting notion. I've been feeling an article coming on for a while
      now, with a title like "How good do you want to be?" It will try to talk
      about how hard an individual or team should try to get better and better
      all the time. I know of some teams who choose to accept productivity well
      below what they are capable of, because (I believe) they'd have to look in
      the mirror too much. Maybe there's nothing wrong with wanting a job where
      they'll pay us for doing something we already know how to do. I know the
      feeling myself sometimes ...

      Ronald E Jeffries
      http://www.XProgramming.com
      http://www.objectmentor.com
    • 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.