Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

[W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD]

In article <3baf9bdf.4459429@news.devx.com>,
kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell) writes:

> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 16:04:31 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
> <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >Those (and the rest you mention) are management problems, not
> >indications of the quality of their technology.

> Ah, but the argument wasn't about the quality of their technology,

Yes it was.

> but about their technical superiority as a nation or political
> organisation,

Nope. Nor was it about the "technical superiority in marketing and
management" of Sony (vs Phillips), or of any of the other pairings.
It was about pure "quality of technology" vs results.

--

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Thomas Eyde]

Mike,

This was a long tale. Does this reflectt actual experience or is it your gut
feeling? I agree with you, a partner not contributing is a waste. This is
not how pair programming is supposed to work. How confident are you that the
non-contributing partner would contribute if he/she sat alone and no one to
watch? A colleauge of mine told about a person it took months to reveal his
true face: He was interested in money only, not to get the work done.

I believe in pair programming, the short, few sessions I've joined so far
gives me a good feeling. But I would hesitate to persue this further if you
have actual experience advising against it.

/Thomas

[Thomas Eyde]

How then can you have so strong opinion against pair-programming?
/Thomas

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3baf92dc.2152229@news.devx.com...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:58:32 +0200, "Thomas Eyde"
> <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
>
> >Does your experience prove pair programming to be ineffective?
>
> Never tried it, mate. Never had sex with a donkey either.
>
> MM

[Rob Teixeira]

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
>Mike,
>
>This was a long tale. Does this reflectt actual experience or is it your
gut
>feeling? I agree with you, a partner not contributing is a waste. This is
>not how pair programming is supposed to work. How confident are you that
the
>non-contributing partner would contribute if he/she sat alone and no one
to
>watch?

A slacker will always find a way to be a slacker, in just about any situation.

> A colleauge of mine told about a person it took months to reveal his
>true face: He was interested in money only, not to get the work done.

The value of good management is to
1) not hire these types to begin with
2) (because we know shifty people find a way to get hired anyway) to replace
them with productive members as soon as possible, just like repairing any
other part of a project that is taking a turn for the worst

>I believe in pair programming, the short, few sessions I've joined so far
>gives me a good feeling. But I would hesitate to persue this further if
you
>have actual experience advising against it.

This underscores the argument about methodology in general. Every methodology's
goal is to provide a clear, distinct, and predictable path to project success,
while trying eliminating problems before they become problems. The trouble
with most methodologies is that they make a vast number of assumptions. Therefore,
the minute you're exact environment doesn't fit one of the assumptions, the
methodology falls apart. In that respect, it's up to the manager, and the
team in general (the team is the central most crucial part of a project),
to find the methodology that fits their needs the best.
If paired programming is working for your team, and results in gained productivity
and high rates of project success, then you probably found what works for
you. Over the years, you and your team will be able to further refine that
methodolgy to bring more consistant and better results.

-Rob

[Cali LaFollett]

Inline...

> The value of good management is to
> 1) not hire these types to begin with
> 2) (because we know shifty people find a way to get hired anyway) to
replace
> them with productive members as soon as possible, just like repairing any
> other part of a project that is taking a turn for the worst

Agreed! Unfortunately step 2 is the norm and many managers, for some reason,
find it hard to "fire" those types of individuals for fear of not being able
to replace them or fear of having to "retrain" somebody else. These types of
managers do not truly see the cost of keeping somebody that is detrimental.
Dan Petit's "Real Visual Basic" book talks about this to some extent.

> This underscores the argument about methodology in general. Every
methodology's
> goal is to provide a clear, distinct, and predictable path to project
success,
> while trying eliminating problems before they become problems. The trouble
> with most methodologies is that they make a vast number of assumptions.
Therefore,
> the minute you're exact environment doesn't fit one of the assumptions,
the
> methodology falls apart. In that respect, it's up to the manager, and the
> team in general (the team is the central most crucial part of a project),
> to find the methodology that fits their needs the best.
> If paired programming is working for your team, and results in gained
productivity
> and high rates of project success, then you probably found what works for
> you. Over the years, you and your team will be able to further refine that
> methodolgy to bring more consistant and better results.

And this is the true point of all of this! I don't think one methodology
will work for everyone. I think a development team should agree on the
initial approach to how they want to accomplish their project and then be
flexible enough to change when that approach starts to falter. In my former
"paired programming" environment, it took a couple of month cycles until we
had the kinks worked out. It was not a true form of XP but a mixture of
traditional development and "paired programming". The best of both worlds so
to speak.

I agree with Mike in that the techniques that he describes works well for
many companies or individual programming teams. I am currently back in that
scenario of traditional development with my current company. I do miss the
"paired programming" side of it that I left behind at my last company but
that is not the current methodology in my current company and I have to be
flexible enough to make it work.

Irregardless which way the group chooses to go, the team in general must
feel comfortable with it or, at some point, it will start to crumble.

Each to his own. That is the part about programming that I like, there are
so many ways to skin a cat and that most of the time, there is never one
true correct answer. As long as it isn't truly detrimental to the project or
the team, what works best for the team or individuals within the team is
what should be used as the solution.

Regards,
Cal

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message <news:3bb051c5$1@news.devx.com>...

> This was a long tale. Does this reflectt actual experience or is it your gut
> feeling? I agree with you, a partner not contributing is a waste. This is
> not how pair programming is supposed to work. How confident are you that the
> non-contributing partner would contribute if he/she sat alone and no one to
> watch? A colleauge of mine told about a person it took months to reveal his
> true face: He was interested in money only, not to get the work done.

How are the tasks assigned to each person? Aim for tangible progress
each and every workday.

> I believe in pair programming, the short, few sessions I've joined so far
> gives me a good feeling. But I would hesitate to persue this further if you
> have actual experience advising against it.

Some people are more easily distracted than others. This is by no means
necessarily an indicator of low intelligence, however.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Sign the Check! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Tom Shelton]

The same reason he has such a strong opinion against VB.NET?

Tom Shelton

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
news:3bb05258@news.devx.com...
> How then can you have so strong opinion against pair-programming?
> /Thomas
>
> "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3baf92dc.2152229@news.devx.com...
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:58:32 +0200, "Thomas Eyde"
> > <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
> >
> > >Does your experience prove pair programming to be ineffective?
> >
> > Never tried it, mate. Never had sex with a donkey either.
> >
> > MM
>
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:48:03 +0200, "Thomas Eyde"
<thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:

>I believe in pair programming, the short, few sessions I've joined so far
>gives me a good feeling. But I would hesitate to persue this further if you
>have actual experience advising against it.

No, I have no eXPerience of it. Everyone I mentioned this too would
find it totally alien to their way of working. Sure, if a research lab
wants to pay me to act as a guinea pig or Versuchskaninchen, I'll try
anything once!

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:50:28 +0200, "Thomas Eyde"
<thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:

>How then can you have so strong opinion against pair-programming?

Well, I can't imagine it being a lot of fun with that donkey...! Think
about it!

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:20:41 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
<bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Yes it was.

I think you should refer yourself to Mark Jerde's post which started
this exchange of views. It's clear that he speaks of 'technical
superiority'.

MM

[Zane Thomas]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:33:28 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
<bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Now there you go again, Zane - a perfect example of the intellectual
>dishonesty that Larry was talking about.

Uh huh, you and Larry are no doubt impressing everyone with your profound
insights and honesty.


--
The nice thing about standards is that
there are so many of them to choose from.