←back to thread

282 points _vaporwave_ | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.588s | source
Show context
Waterluvian ◴[] No.44999915[source]
Some days an interruption will throw me off my train of thought, and I spend the remaining six hours collecting discarded bottles and railway ties for hopeful use somewhere, somehow, sometime.

Other days an interruption costs me pretty much nothing.

I’m still trying to figure out how to tell which of those days I’m going to have and whether to just not log into Slack for the day.

replies(14): >>44999940 #>>45000121 #>>45000236 #>>45000314 #>>45000493 #>>45001283 #>>45001447 #>>45001905 #>>45001941 #>>45002030 #>>45002057 #>>45003807 #>>45005151 #>>45005448 #
karmakaze ◴[] No.45000493[source]
I've found one thing that minimizes interruption cost: pair programming. At one startup we pair programmed all day, every day. Resuming from an interruption was almost seamless. Can't explain it, only experienced it.
replies(8): >>45000671 #>>45000685 #>>45000970 #>>45001512 #>>45002084 #>>45002294 #>>45007473 #>>45007708 #
SoftTalker ◴[] No.45000671[source]
If only I wouldn’t prefer stabbing myself in the leg with a rusty knife over pair programming.
replies(9): >>45000690 #>>45000909 #>>45000936 #>>45000950 #>>45001156 #>>45001994 #>>45002151 #>>45003045 #>>45004772 #
jiggawatts ◴[] No.45001156[source]
When pair programming was a fad in the early 2000s, I tried it with a coworker for a security-critical piece of code that needed two pairs of eyes on it.

It felt horrendously unproductive to have two people at one keyboard but we compared commit rates and the surprising result was that we produced the same rate of changes as working separately.

replies(2): >>45001937 #>>45002202 #
1. kaffekaka ◴[] No.45001937[source]
Does this mean you as a pair were as productive as both of you individuals combined? Or that the pair was as productive as one individual?

Pair programming is twice as expensive so it needs to be twice a productive (quality, LOC, whatever) to make sense I guess.

replies(1): >>45002090 #
2. jiggawatts ◴[] No.45002090[source]
Two of us at one keyboard were as productive as the two of us separately combined.

I figured this was because typically while one person was coding the other would be researching. If you’re by yourself those are serial activities instead of parallel and the total workload is the same.