[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:40:53PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: >> Well, pair programming is probably one of the better suggestions in the >> book, IMO. However, it almost certainly doesn't offset the productivity >> loss. > > Here here! PP may be helpful BUT!!!! by needing 2 people for every task > you've cut your productivity by 50% off the bat. You now need > a 50% improvement from PP *just to break even*. >
Heh, 1/.5 = 2. :-) You need to double productivity! Still, I think the argument is that _when it works_ and/or _if done right_ (and _if it suits you_), the productivity increase is very large, indeed. The detection of stupid errors alone may pay the bill. And the consequential benefits mentioned by Andy are really there. A big problem may be it's hard to get into practice, and may not suit some people or pairs-of-people. Me, for example. Although I have had experiences where pairing was nearly magical for debugging tasks. There may be an informal (and ad hoc) is ok, formal is way-harder aspect, too. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
