PAIR PROGRAMMING ILLUMINATED PDF
5, November-December Cite this book review as follows: Charles Ashbacher: Review of “Pair Programming Illuminated”, in Journal of Object Technology. Download Citation on ResearchGate | On Jan 1, , L Williams and others published Pair Programming Illuminated. Read Online Now pair programming illuminated book by addison wesley professional Ebook PDF at our Library. Get pair programming illuminated book by.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|ePub File Size:||MB|
|PDF File Size:||MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Get this from a library! Pair programming illuminated. [Laurie Williams; Robert R Kessler]. Pair Programming Illuminated [Laurie Williams, Robert Kessler] on weinratgeber.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Pair programming is a simple. Pair Programming Illuminated by Laurie Williams, Robert Kessler The leap to pair programming for a variety of software development projects is Industrial Press Inc.| ISBN: | | Scanned PDF in 7z archive.
The Horse-Trading Problem is a simple question as seen in Figure1. So, how much did the man earn? Figure: Classic Horse-Trading Problem The problem was part of a class activity intended to show the students the validity of collaborative problem solving. This experiment was carried out on students for learning purposes; therefore the experiment was not strictly monitored.
Students were asked to solve the problem either alone or in pairs; they were also allowed to form their own groups with as many members as they referred see Table 2.
Groups were allowed to refer back to the question as needed throughout the problem solving process, and were able to use as much time as necessary to solve the problem. Finally, each group wrote down their respective answers and submitted it. Most of the groups were able to work out a solution in around three minutes. The time needed to determine a solution is not considered, as the difference in solution times may be large in terms of percentage, but overall the time is not significant as these differences are too short.
More importantly, though, not all groups were able to correctly solve the problem by calculating the amount the man actually earns. Groups 1 and 2 offer a strong statistical basis as evidence and such results are consistent with sociological research findings Maier see Figure 2. However, when the group size consists of five or more, the correction percentage dropped slightly.
This result could be related to ergonomics as the classroom seats arranged in fixed rows.
A group of two may be able to communicate side-by-side effectively, but for groups larger than three a round table is needed to facilitate communication and collaboration. Accuracy graph III. The test includes a number of reasoning tasks: procedural problems, classification knowledge, deduction questions also called serial questions , and mathematical reasoning.
PAT scores have been used by some organizations to prescreen programmer candidates for job interviews. McNamara and Hughes  conducted research involving 57 professional programmers, with an average age of 25 years, who have 15 months of relevant work experience. Actual job performance as a programmer, 2. Future programming potential, 3.
System-analyst potential, and 4. Management potential, as graded by their supervisors. Correlations of 0.
For 4, it was 0. The correlation between PAT scores and system-analyst potential is found to be significantly higher than the others. In addition to studies of PATs with professional programmers , , , , , , , studies of PATs with students have also been conducted , , , , .
They used a PAT that was designed by Huoman in .
In a study in , 30 computer science students were tested and results showed that scores of playing the Mastermind game, which also ignores computer language skills, correlated with in-class programming test scores at the 0. In summary, most studies show that PAT scores are correlated with job performance in general but not necessarily with program design performance in particular.
Most PATs do not require those being tested to have specific knowledge of any programming language or development environment.
However, PATs measure performance on a number of reasoning tasks critically important to program design: procedural problems, classification knowledge, deduction questions, and mathematical reasoning.
Program size is expressed in estimated thousands of source lines of code SLOC. COCOMO applies to three classes of software projects: Organic projects - "small" teams with "good" experience working with "less than rigid" requirements. Semi-detached projects - "medium" teams with mixed experience working with a mix of rigid and less than rigid requirements.
Embedded projects - developed within a set of "tight" constraints. It is also combination of organic and semi-detached projects. The coefficients ab, bb, cb and db are given in the following table: Software project ab Bb Cb db Organic 2. Hence Embedded Software project should be allotted to high ranked pair.
REAP is between 0 and , 4. When REAP is negative, the total time of pair programmers is less than the time of the individual programmer, that is, pairs are actually more efficient than a single pair programmer and it is less costly to use pair programmers than individual programmers.
If REAP is zero, this is a break-even point, where the total time of pair programming is the same as individual programming, but pair programming halves the elapsed time required for individual programming. When REAP is greater than zero but is less than percent, pairs require more total man hours to complete the task but are faster than individual programmers, that is, the elapsed time to complete is less for pairs than for individual programmers.
This can be useful when the critical issue is time to market , . As windows of opportunity and product life cycles have been shortening in recent years, premium pricing and higher sales levels that can accrue to early-mover companies can make it worthwhile for them to spend more on short-term development costs . Pair programming provides an alternative to accelerate software programming beyond dividing up programming tasks.
If REAP is around percent, the elapsed time for pair programmers is almost the same time as in the individual programmer; therefore, pair programming doubles the total man hours as compared to individual programming. When REAP is greater than percent, then the elapsed time for pair programming is longer than the time for an individual programmer. REAP can also be used in measurements for non programming related tasks.
For example, in a controlled non programming experiment, Lazonder compared pairs of students against single students in Web search tasks and the REAP equates to Halstead makes the observation that metrics of the software should reflect the implementation or expression of algorithms in different languages, but be independent of their execution on a specific platform. These metrics are therefore computed statically from the code. Halstead's goal was to identify measurable properties of software, and the relations between them.
This is similar to the identification of measurable properties of matter like the volume, mass, and pressure of a gas and the relationships between them such as the gas equation. Thus his metrics are actually not just complexity metrics. The unit of measurement of T is the second. In , psychologist John M. Stroud suggested that the human mind is capable of making a limited number of mental discrimination per second Stroud Number , in the range of 5 to Much work has been carried out on improving the efficiency of the pairs in Pair Programming.
However, all these works suffer from finding efficient pairs. We aim to obtain an efficient algorithm which will produced the best pairs from the individuals and then provide the ranking to the selected pairs by using Average REAP and Halstead Complexity Metrics, the aim is to detect more defects and adjust implementation strategy just when code is written.
PRA is fundamentally different from all the previous algorithms and researches. We have applied PP in the coding phase of software development. PP is not solely reserved to coding phase but can be applied to other phase of the process such as analysis and design.
As shown in the Figure 3, PRA algorithm takes input of REAPs of successful pairs and individuals and finds the ranking of pairs with respect to an individual using PAT performance and also finds pairs ranking by computing average reap and Halstead Complexity Metrics considering technical performance along with PAT performance.
Programmer Ranker Algorithm PRA Pair programming involves two developers simultaneously collaborating with each other on the same programming task to design and code a solution. After providing rank the best pair is allocated to Embedded Software project type, Semi detached Software project type and Organic Software project type respectively.
It provides a quantitative method to find the best pairs from the given individuals. The proposed method will be discussed in the following sub-sections. In the proposed PRA best pairs will be found from the given list of individuals. But in the proposed algorithm following assumptions are made. Make sure that every programmer fully understands the concept of pair programming before trying to apply it.
Try to describe the expected goals with pair programming before the work starts. Try to set up some kind of rules of how and when to pair up i. Let people work on their own if they feel they need to.
The process of finding best pairs and their ranking is divided into following parts. Programming Aptitude Test PAT Programming aptitude tests PATs have been shown to be related to programming task related capabilities , , , , , , , , , , , . In this paper we are also using PAT as a task to measure elapsed time of individuals and pairs.
It is compulsory for every individual and pair to go through PAT. In our PAT there will be different sets of questions which can be assigned by admin project manager to different individuals and pairs but the set should be same for a particular process.
The sets will have four sections- Numerical, Reasoning, English and Technical. There will be sectional as well as aggregate cut off. The subjects Individuals or Pairs will have to clear the both cut offs to be considered for PRA as input.
PWT is used to assess the style of coding of the subject only Pairs. The programs of the selected best pairs generated through PRA will act as input for Halstead Program Complexity Metrics and then estimated number of bugs and their final ranking will be computed.
Halstead Complexity Metrics Halstead complexity measures are software metrics introduced by Maurice Howard Halstead  as part of his treatise on establishing an empirical science of software development.
The S value for software scientists is set to 18 [Hamer ]. It shows that the effort spent to develop the project can be reduced by pair programming. In this work, we proposed a model for software development using pair programming suitable in industry environment.
We will be able to compare Individual vs Pairs and generate efficient pairs in context of Pair Programming. Rank will be provided to each pair of Junior, Senior of industry. We can work towards quality improvement, reliable and bug free software. We can detect more defects, bugs and adjust implementation strategy just when code is written.
The result shows that the PP is more effective with respect to fastness in completion, high quality, program size, defect identification speed and defect removal rate, number of rework done etc.
Our study showed that junior individuals may lack the necessary skills to perform tasks with acceptable quality, in particular, on more complex systems.
Junior pair programmers achieved a significant increase in correctness compared with the individuals and achieved approximately the same degree of correctness as senior individuals. Software testing is often viewed as requiring less skill than initial system development and is thus often allocated to the more junior staff.
Our study concludes that, if juniors are assigned to complex tasks, they should perform the tasks in pairs. This will reduce the time and effort requires developing the Embedded Software project which will eventually reduce overall cost of software. We can conclude that PP is very effective in the Software Development Process and can be incorporated in the industry environment.
Future study on PP should extend the scope of present study in two important ways. Still our experimental task is relatively small and simple and our result might be therefore present a conservative estimates of benefits of Pair Programming. Future experiments should ideally, include larger systems and more complex task. References 1. Glenford J.
See a Problem?
Furthermore, many experts are not very good at explaining how they do things to anyone, much less someone who may not know the basic syntax rules. Novice-novice pairing is another where one finds it difficult to find reasons to justify ever doing it. You certainly could not trust the pair to create valuable code and if they reinforce each other's weaknesses, you could also see a reduction in their skill levels if they are paired. I don't agree with the authors when they say that a novice pair is better than a solo novice.
In my opinion, the only convincing arguments they have for pairings are expert-expert, expert-average, average-average and average-novice. The argument against pair programming is not that it doesn't lead to the faster solving of problems than if the two worked alone.
Everyone who has coded has experienced those moments where they spent hours trying to track down a bug, only to show the problem code to another and have them solve it in a manner of seconds.
The question has always been whether the pairing of programmers leads to solutions arrived at twice as fast and the answer to that question is no. Pair programming is more efficient than two working separately due to the fact that the quality of the solutions is higher.
Given the complexity of the code and the length of time it will be subject to maintenance, even a slightly better solution arrived at by pair programming can justify putting the two heads on it.
This point is made strongly and in my mind conclusively by the authors. Pair programming is a fundamental part of the development strategy known as extreme programming or XP and there is some coverage of XP in the book.
Pair Programming Illuminated
However, pair programming is something that can and should be done independent of XP, as properly used, it can lead to profound increases in productivity.However, you don't have to imagine spending the rest of the project shoulder-to-shoulder with one individual. Chapters 1—4 will give you a solid understanding of the technique and its benefits.
In this chapter, we will go through these common misconceptions that we've heard about concerning pair programming. Managers should start by reading Chapters 1—4 and Chapter 7 of Part One. You also need wall space for whiteboards and pin boards, to create what Kent Beck now calls an Informative Workspace. Diverse Teams. On Ward's Wiki we read, "Get two people programming in pairs, and they'll work more than twice as fast as one could have" Wiki , contributed by Paul Chisholm.
Kimberly: Yesterday, Chelsea and I worked on the new account entry form. Novice-novice pairing is another where one finds it difficult to find reasons to justify ever doing it. You slowly walk from the parking lot to the building.