From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out03a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr21.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <461B52A6.20102@obry.net> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1176396382.586729.195490@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <46249099.4080408@obry.net> Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.100.216 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.net 1177121909 ST000 70.134.100.216 (Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:18:29 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:18:29 EDT Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: [[PAPDCAOHV[RVT[AROR__TDFZ\@@FXLM@TDOCQDJ@_@FNTCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:18:29 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15182 Date: 2007-04-21T02:18:29+00:00 List-Id: "Ed Falis" wrote in message news:PM00042E503F06FEA3@tilopa.unknown.dom... > > I don't know about studies, but the XP people have plenty of anecdotal > evidence about the effectiveness of "pair programming" as a lightweight > form of code review. > I recall a real-time, non-stop, program that sometimes needed to be fixed at odd hours of the night. The rule was that no patch was allowed to be entered into the program unless there were at least two programmers working on it at the same time and both agreeing that it was OK. Two, of course, is not a really good number. We can learn some lessons from the Byzantine General's Problem, I suppose. Richard Riehle