what is the pro/g/rammers verdict of pair programming?

>>60980423
It's shit unless you both somewhat understand how each other think. Usually its just one guy doing all the work while the other is nitpicking over some small, inconsequential shit (I've done both).
Personally I've had one situation where it worked out and it was amazing, so try your luck

>>60980581
so are you saying it will not work with designated street shitters?

i've only ever worked efficiently with one (1) other person
even then we both used different "styles" i.e.

if (statement) {
vs.
if (statement)
    {

so the code was a mess in the end but it was always ahead of schedule and almost always bug free (to the extent of our tests)

>>60980423
It's great for teaching purposes. However, for obvious reasons it nearly halves productivity if you consider replacing all the people who need a partner with lone wolves.

Absolute shit for programming.

Pretty good for learning about tools and procedures.

I'd totally recommend it for anything that isn't just writing a new function for top to bottom,.

>>60980423
It's fine when both people know each other, are comfortable with each other, are of the same skill level, and aren't loners. As long as all those things are true, the resulting code can be produced at a decent rate and with a pleasantly low number of bugs, but it's very hard to meet all those conditions.

If they're of different skill levels, productivity is going to be less than the normal productivity of the more skilled one, but it's a great way to teach the less skilled one.

tl;dr not feasible in a work environment if the goal is productivity. Good for temporary use if the goal is teaching a newcomer.

>>60980632
>bug free (to the extent of our tests)
I'd be pretty concerned if you shipped code that failed your own tests due to an unfixed bug

File: 010.png (579KB, 907x1300px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 907x1300px

Only if it's with qt 2d girls.

Good if I didn't have an IDE.
> "Dude, I think you missed a semi-colon there"

File: 1497833350928.jpg (30KB, 600x318px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x318px

>>60980423
>pair programming
i'd fill her buffer iykwim

File: IMG_0072.jpg (25KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 900x900px

>>60980710

>>60980913
>implying IDEs are smart enough to catch when you fuck up the spelling or capitalization of a variable name

>>60981015
>windows
>having tests

pair programming
pail programming
fail programming

>>60981239
show us your github

>>60980632
Why the fuck don't you faggots have a coding standard

>>60980632
>>60981397
Or better - automatic code formatting in CR/CI pipeline

>>60980423
It's a shit idea. It only works for brief amounts of time with the right people and a simple enough problem.

In most instances, it's a fucking waste of time.

"Here's the person you have to program with" is retarded. Self directed pair programming where two people decide to work together because they know they complement each other well is fantastic.

>>60980611
Does anything work with designated street shitters?

>>60982112
You're not "pair programming" all day long even then, though. And you're not switching roles systematically.

What you're doing is going over to the other guy to tackle the most likely candidates for a solution to a more difficult problem, then you do the simple tasks separately.

>>60980748
Tru and also sauce

pair debugging is aces plus, particularly when the issue is data driven.

pair programming for actually implementing something is a waste of time though.

>>60982155
Manga called system engineers.