On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:08:40PM +0100, Robert Thompson wrote: > Having two people look at/develop a piece of code is better than one. > Therefore having three people must be even better. > But why stop there - why not four, five, six . . . > Better yet - design/develop by committee! You've hit the fundamental problem with XP. Getting anything done requires two programmers to agree on something; this, as everyone knows, is impossible. -- So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure How amazingly unlikely is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth. (Monty Python)
- A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer (auf deu... Philip Newton
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Robin Houston
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP progra... Roger Burton West
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP progra... Barbie
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP pr... Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Philip Newton
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP progra... Simon Cozens
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP progra... Robin Houston
- RE: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Robert Thompson
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP progra... Simon Cozens
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP pr... James Powell
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an X... AEF
- Dell asset numbers .. Robin Szemeti
- Re: Dell asset numbers .. Jonathan Peterson
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an X... Simon Cozens
- Re: A look over the shoulder of... Struan Donald
- Re: A look over the shoulder of... Chris Devers
- Re: A look over the shoulder of... Leon Brocard
- Re: A look over the shoulde... Robert Shiels
- Re: A look over the shoulder of... David H. Adler
