Defending the Python lanuage...

[Jim Richardson]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:14:50 -0500,
 Michael Chermside <mcherm at destiny.com> wrote:
>>> Really? What an unusual idea - I didn't realise we had such a surplus of
>>> programmers to advocate something like this :-)
>> 
>> This is a little more "extreme" than I was referring to as well.  The idea
>> of two programmers sitting at the same computer doesn't really go over well
>> with me... I was referring having two programmers sit side-by-side at
>> separate computers, working on different parts of the same program versus
>> having one programmer work in isolation.  Indeed, I don't know many
>> programmers with the patience to sit and watch someone else type ;) 
> 
> 
> Ermmm.... No.
> 
> When XP or Agile Programming advocates talk about "pair programming" 
> they really DO mean one keyboard, two programmers.
> 
> Peter Milliken writes that he didn't know we had such a surplus of 
> programmers -- this is a common misconception. Suppose that, working on 
> your own, you get X amount of coding done in a day. If we could spare a 
> second programmer to stand there and just help you out -- someone to 
> bounce ideas off of, to watch for typos, to suggest things that you had 
> forgotten -- then you'd get MORE done... say X * k.
> 
> If k is 1.05, then you are getting a 5% speedup by having someone around 
> to help out. If k were 3, then you'd get THREE TIMES as much done. If 
> THIS were the case, then it'd be worth it to your company to tell 
> someone else to stop working on their own and just help you out! The 
> break-even point is somewhere around k=2.
> 
> The exact value of k depends on LOTS of things, including the 
> personalities of the programmers involved, the kind of work involved, 
> etc, but I have heard several different annecdotal estimates that place 
> k at just-less-than 2. (Maybe k=1.9 +/- 0.2 for typical situations.)
> 
> If k is close to 2, then there it might NOT be a stupid idea to put 
> programmers in pairs, even without a surplus. Particularly because we 
> expect some additional benefits in addition to the coding speed, like 
> fewer bugs and better sharing of the knowledge among the coding team.
> 
> As for Cliff Wells' contention that he doesn't know many programmers who 
> would want to do this, I have to differ. There are clearly some 
> programmers who absolutely hate working in pairs, but there are also 
> many others who LOVE it.
> 
> Now I just wish I could convince my company to consider doing pair 
> programming. Because for *ME* personally, k is around 3 or 4.
> 
> -- Michael Chermside
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



I would suspect that K is also strongly affected by the relative
abilities of the programmers, If the "newbie" (Say for example, moi)
were at the keyboard, with Guru sitting beside me, K=10+ :) but what
would K= if we swapped seats? 
 This sounds to me, like one of those things that can only be measured,
not accurately modeled, due to the variables. But the idea is
intriguing. It certainly is used in a lot of non-programming jobs.
Sounds like a great way to learn too :)

-- 
Jim Richardson
	Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Step by step, day by day, the penguins march forward.