On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:27:19PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > 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. No it isn't! (sorry) jp
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer (auf... Robin Houston
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Roger Burton West
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Barbie
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP progra... Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer (auf... Philip Newton
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Simon Cozens
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Robin Houston
- RE: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer (auf... Robert Thompson
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer... Simon Cozens
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP progra... James Powell
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP pr... AEF
- Dell asset numbers .. Robin Szemeti
- Re: Dell asset numbers .. Jonathan Peterson
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP pr... Simon Cozens
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an X... Struan Donald
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an X... Chris Devers
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an X... Leon Brocard
- Re: A look over the shoulder of... Robert Shiels
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an X... David H. Adler
- Re: A look over the shoulder of an XP programmer (auf... Philip Newton