Downloaded 25 times
Uploaded byJon Jagger
Pair programming
This document discusses the benefits of pair programming based on research studies and experiences. It finds that pairs produce higher quality code with fewer defects in less time compared to individuals. While difficult to adopt initially, pairs are more consistent, communicative, and productive due to learning from each other, courage to tackle challenges, and not wanting to let their partner down. Regular pairing helps programmers become a cohesive team and scale collaboration effectively.
More Related Content
![[IJCT-V3I2P28] Authors: KulbirKaur, AnureetKaur](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/ijct-v3i2p28-160609063624-thumbnail.jpg?width=600ounds&width=560&fit=bounds)
Pair programming
- 1. pair programming twitter :@JonJagger email : jon@jaggersoft.com blog : http://jonjagger.blogspot.co.uk/ charity : http://cyber-dojo.org
- 2. 2 a seldom questionedview of programming - a view which this book will spend a great deal of time questioning. That view is that programming is an individual activity...
- 3. 3 Written 1969 Published 1971 SilverAnniversary 1994 Golden Anniversary 2019 longest continuously in-print book on software development?
- 4. 4 devs who saythey work alone don't
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10. 10 what 's the longestlived bug?
- 11.
- 12.
- 13. 13 if you're going throughhell, keep going
- 14.
- 15. 15 in my experience, pairprogramming is more productive than dividing the work between two programmers and then integrating the results
- 16. 16 programmers admit to workingharder and smarter on programs because they do not want to let their partner down
- 17. 17 pairs spent about15% more time on the program than the individuals* the resulting code has about 15% fewer defects the pairs consistently implemented the same functionality in fewer lines of code most of the programmers enjoyed programming collaboratively http://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/Papers/ieeeSoftware.PDF strengthening the case for pair programming Laurie Williams Robert Kessler Ward Cunningham Ron Jeffries
- 18. 18 An experiment byTemple University Professor Nosek studied 15 full-time, experienced programmers working for 45 minutes on a challenging problem, important to their organization, in their own environment, and with their own equipment. Five worked individually, ten worked collaboratively in five pairs. Conditions and materials used were the same for both the experimental (team) and control (individual) groups. Nosek, J. T. (1998). The Case for Collaborative Programming. Communications of the ACM. March 1998: 105-108.
- 19. 19 All the teamsoutperformed the individual programmers, enjoyed the problem-solving process more, and had greater confidence in their solutions... producing better algorithms and code in less time (40%) Results statistically significant using two-sidedt-test.
- 20. 20 if pairing increases productivity whyis it rare?
- 21. 21 pairing is rare becauseworking solo is common!
- 22. 22 "locking" occurs whenever asituation creates an environment favorable for maintaining that situation... locking occurs in all sorts of systems... especially... social
- 23. 23 ? different keyboards ?different editors ? table design ? room layout ? number of computers ? tools ? individual assessments ? languages ? expertise
- 24. 24 most people resist transitioningto pair programming – it involves breaking old habits and being more communicative and collaborative than we’ve been conditioned to be
- 25. 25 pairs spent about15% more time on the program than the individuals* the resulting code has about 15% fewer defects the pairs consistently implemented the same functionality in fewer lines of code most of the programmers enjoyed programming collaboratively for the first assignment pairs took 60% more programmer hours to complete the assignment *
- 26. 26 transitioning to pairingis not easy give it at least 3 weeks it gets worse before it gets better
- 27.
- 28. 28 name the XP values 4in edition 1 5 in edition 2
- 29.
- 30.
- 31. 31 pair programming works forXP because it encourages communication XP is a communal software development discipline.
- 32. 32 we believe pair programmingis an integral part of XP
- 33. 33 pairing doesn't reallywork if you don't talk!
- 34. 34 "at first I foundit hard to verbalize my thoughts"
- 35.
- 36. 36 if people programsolo they are more likely to make mistakes, more likely to overdesign, more likely to blow off the other practises, particularly under pressure
- 37. 37 under stress, people revertto earlier behaviour, no matter how badly that behaviour has worked in the past
- 38. 38 programmers admit to workingharder and smarter on programs because they do not want to let their partner down
- 39. 39 Studies of Independenceand Submission to Group Pressure. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority Solomon Asch Psychological Monographs, 7, Series No. 416, 1956.
- 40.
- 41. 41 18 trials in trial1 and trial 2 the 7 confederates and the subject gave the obviously right answer in the remaining 16 trials the 7 confederates gave the wrong answer 12 times
- 42. 42 75% of subjectsgave incorrect answer in at least 1 trial subject conformed to the incorrect answer in all 12 trials 36% of the time
- 43. 43 variation presence of 1true confederate decreased subjects conformity to the incorrect answer by 75%
- 44.
- 45. 45 it is awell-known psychological principle that in order to maximize the rate of learning, the subject must be fed back information on how well or poorly he is doing
- 46. 46 the average adult learns verylittle if left to his own devices
- 47. 47 we are all lousyself evaluators
- 48. 48 ?% of highschool seniors believe their leadership skills are below average
- 49. 49 2% of highschool seniors believe their leadership skills are below average
- 50.
- 51. 51 I am the World'sleading expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect!
- 52.
- 53. 53 the requirement to developcapability cannot be met adequately by a single person. We learn much faster and much better with the active cooperation of others
- 54.
- 55. 55 learning from failure onlyhas meaning when we know what we mean by success Kevlin Henney
- 56. 56 i have notfailed i've just found 1000 ways that won't work Thomas Edison
- 57. 57 success == inventan incandescent light bulb that lasts one hour
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61. 61 pairing and risk helps reducetruck/bus number
- 62. 62 pairing and risk also knownas the lottery number
- 63. 63 pairing and interruptions pairs arevery resistant to interruptions
- 64. 64 pairing and interviewing teamwork characteristics... cannotbe determined if you interview ... one at a time.
- 65. 65 pairing and practice I feltit was unwise to allow players to practice by themselves. Always I wanted them to be interacting with their teammates.
- 66.
- 67. 67 pairing and refactoring Wibble *p = new WIbble(); if (p == NULL) ....
- 68. 68 if driver alwayswrites definitions before use suggest writing use before definition pairing and observing
- 69. 69 navigator reads ALPHAin code/comment but driver says BETA when describing ALPHA pairing and observing
- 70.
- 71. 71 the pair resultswere also more consistent, while the individuals varied more about the mean pairing and consistency
- 72. 72 pairing and scaling having morethan nine members requires too much coordination Scrum Guide having more than nine pairs requires too much coordination What about...
- 73. 73 repairing in http://cyber-dojo.org pairseasily cope with repairing every 5 minutes!
- 74.
- 75. 75 if egoless programmingis used, everyone in the group will have the opportunity to examine the work of everyone else at some time, thereby tending to prevent the establishment of strong hierarchy p72
- 76. 76 widespread use ofpair programming involves a cultural shift in values of the organization - away from individual and toward team recognition and goals
- 77. thanks for listening twitter: @JonJagger email : jon@jaggersoft.com blog : http://jonjagger.blogspot.co.uk/ charity : http://cyber-dojo.org