Some replies to your comment demonstrate exactly why I'm not a fan of forced pairing advocacy and the arguments they use. It borders on the religious: "I love pair programming. Try it, you will love it too"
When someone doesn't experience the unbridled joy of pair programming salvation, it is always something wrong with them, their task, or their partner. Essentially, "oh you weren't pairing correctly" -> "you didn't have enough faith".
Is there any possibility pair programming advocates can cede that developers can eschew pair programming and still produce quality code?
Since I wrote one of the "here's how you could fix your pair programming" replies, I should clarify that I don't think pair programming is the only way to work. I'm not doing it in my job right now and don't particularly think I should be.
If you are pair programming either by choice or circumstance, it's useful to know some tricks to make it work better. But if you've tried it and don't think it's the right thing, then you should do something else.
I see what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, so i hop my comment didn't sound religious. All I meant was, if someone is typing, and someone else is watching, and no one is talking, then you aren't doing what any reasonable person would call "pairing".
Don't dislike practices because there are people who are passionate about them.
How you organize a team is up to you, but pair programming does remain a highly effective tool for some teams. It certainly beats change control boards.
When someone doesn't experience the unbridled joy of pair programming salvation, it is always something wrong with them, their task, or their partner. Essentially, "oh you weren't pairing correctly" -> "you didn't have enough faith".
Is there any possibility pair programming advocates can cede that developers can eschew pair programming and still produce quality code?