One of the mantras of agile is that Pair Programming is universally good; some teams even extended this into “mob programming” where the whole team shares a keyboard. After practicing this on and off for two decades, I’m not too convinced of its general applicability or advantageousness. Note that this will be a longread ;-)

Pair programming, as a formal discipline, was probably first described in ‘98 or so by Beck in “Extreme Programming Explained”. The book has a publication date of ‘99 but I still remember getting my hands on a PDF preview, printing a copy for all our colleagues at the small shop I worked at, and us rapidly adopting it - with some success, I must say. Some bits that were lacking were later, much later, provided by Scrum and then Kanban. A really good book that bridges Scrum and XP, incidentally, is Scrum and XP from the trenches by Kniberg.

XP consisted of a set of practices, and later on diagrams appeared on the corresponding website to show how the practices related to each other:

XP Development Practices

You’ll notice that pairing is “just” one of a collection of disciplines that make Collective Code Ownership possible by learning and communicating a lot. The importance of the arrow is not really up for discussion, of course, the practices are listed as a set of things that can make learning happen.

After the book, a whole cottage industry sprung up around it where all the different aspects of XP were explored. XP was developed during the “Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation Project”, and there was a lot of detail and subtlety lacking in Beck’s initial description, which prompted him to write more books and many, many others to write and reflect and discuss and write more… This was the time that blogging started happening and the blogs were overflowing with meticulously detailed explanations of every aspect and practice of XP, often losing out of sight what place a practice took in XP and where it was developed.

Pair Programming became a mantra, and what people conveniently forgot was how careful things were built up during the C3 project to make sure that all the various practices could thrive. I couldn’t dig up the image (so I’m reciting this from memory) but the room was described in word and picture as having small individual workspots against the wall, and shared pairing workstations around a large central table.

Shared Pairing Workstations

Let that sink in for a while. And think about the implications of having an Actual Room (not an open plan office) with all of the team in the room (not half of them remote or working from home) and specific workstations to pair on. So you don’t need to type on your colleague’s “interesting” configuration of Emacs which uses Wordstar keybindings because that was such a nice editor way back.

XP was developed as a set of practices that were reinforced and guided by its environment - they had hugely complex business requirements, and a setup where all the team was in the same room, and that shaped their thinking of how they should tackle the project. Beck (and friends, I’m sure) invented a snappy title, published some books on it which maybe should have been marketed more as experience reports than as “and this is how thou shalt henceforth develop thy software”, and the rest is history.

Enough context. Let’s start with some pair programming bashing.

By the numbers

One of the claims made about pair programming is that it is not more expensive than individual programming, but scant proof is ever delivered. Of course, asserting stuff but not doing the research is the main thing that guides our fashion-driven industry, and I’m guilty of the same, but sometimes it’s nice to at least have some research backing up claims. I went looking for indications that pair programming was actually cheaper, and came up empty-handed. All that I did come up with, after an email exchange with Capers Jones was a very hefty file full of counter evidence; Mr. Jones even provided me with a simple spreadsheet that let you do some cost calculations. The spreadsheet is what convinced me that the cost argument doesn’t hold.

Why? Without going into details - you can do the math yourself - the premise of pair programming is that bugs are expensive to fix, that by having more eyes on the code you will have less bugs, and that the lower cost of bugfixing will make the higher up-front investment go away. Superficially, that all seems to make sense.

There are a couple of things that don’t fly here. The obvious thing, to me, is that you double the cost of fixing bugs (you’re pairing all the time, of course). So you need to slash the bugfixing work by half if you just want to break even on bug fixing time, but you’ve still spend twice the amount of time writing the code, so you probably need to really trounce the number of bugs by a factor of ten or so. By that reasoning alone, you need to be very convinced of the benefits of pair programming to go at it 100% of the time.

But there’s a more important aspect: in the diagram above, pair programming is listed as one of four practices that promotes shared code ownership. I assert that XP - and even if you don’t XP, you do a lot of XP these days - is literally plastered with good practices that promote lower defect rates, and this was all before we had nice code analysis tools, continuous integration systems, etcetera. In the ’90s, there was a large cost of software distribution to be factored in but for most companies in the SaaS/Web field these days, that cost is close to zero. If I have a bug in production, I fix it, hit merge, and five minutes later it is deployed. The argument that bugs are expensive to fix simply doesn’t hold anymore, which removes one of the major reasons for coping with the large up-front cost of pair programming in the first place.

My hypothesis is that all these practices together already lower defect rates and repair cost to such an extent that doubling up will never be able to recoup the investment. Defect rates are simply too low and caught too early, fixed too cheaply.

Economically, Pair Programming does not make sense in the modern day of SaaS/Webapp development.

By the practices

The XP practice map goes deeper to explain how daily coding works:

XP Collective Code Ownership

Pair programming now takes a central position, which seems to invalidate my take on that pairing is just one of the practices that promotes collective code ownership and learning. But remember, these people were sitting in a single room and were very disciplined about their pairing practice. Over the years, I practiced “good pairing” a lot and it is great fun - I’m not saying it makes economic sense, but it certainly is a fun way to work. It’s very intense as well, and hard to keep up for long.

It goes something like this:

  • We walk to a shared workstation, either specifically setup, or a new user login with a simple IDE (and let’s hope that you both agree on Qwerty vs Dvorak). In Smalltalk, this was easy as the IDE and the runtime are pretty much inseparable and teams would heavily modify the IDE during a project but this would be run through the same mechanism as “production” code; everybody therefore ran the exact same IDE. Not having to hunt for keyboard shortcuts and menu locations is hugely important when you’re trying to write code;
  • We look at the task at hand, and probably break it down in little steps;
  • The first little step gets implemented as a test by (say) me - the test fails, of course;
  • I smile and hand the keyboard to you, and you go to work on fixing the test, thinking out loud; I reflect on what we’re doing. One person is thinking tactically (“are we doing the thing right?”), the other person more strategically (“are we doing the right thing?”);
  • You fix the test, we decide the code is ok, nothing to refactor, so you write the next test, when it shows red, bounce the keyboard back to me and I start writing code;
  • Ad Infinitum. Usually I’d like to couple this with a Pomodoro (25 minute code time, 5 minute break) work rhythm with longer breaks every two or three pomodori. This is an intense way of working and regular breaks help.

The requirements here are: we have a common shared IDE, we have the same worktimes, and we can bounce the keyboard between us. From my experience, these are the only circumstances where pairing as a coding practice makes sense. Furthermore, not just “a pair” needs to have the same worktimes, the whole team pretty much has to: you want to typically switch pairs around lunch and at the start of the day, and if only two or three people are aligned in terms of work time, then the very important practice of “Move People Around” gets killed. Two people will pair for days and then be surprised if a third person looks at the code and goes all ballistic. The method of pairing described here makes the hardest part of pairing - changing drivership at times - a natural and simple thing to do and therefore in my experience it’s the only way that really works well.


  • If you pair with the same person all day or for days, you’re doing it wrong;
  • If you pair in my environment or your environment, you’re likely doing it wrong unless we use the same IDE;
  • If you pair remotely using some screensharings where only one person can effectively drive, you’re certainly doing it wrong;
  • If you pair without TDD, you’re probably doing it wrong, too.

Note that I’m still not advocating that you should write code in pairs, just that if you insist on doing it you need to be mindful about why pairing is supposed to work: the switching between driver and follower ensures that people alternate between learning and reflecting, that design issues are captured early by reflecting, and that you don’t fall into antipatterns like the subject matter expert typing and the junior or intern just staring at the screen in ever increasing bewilderment, leaving it up to the assertiveness of the latter person to pull the emergency brake (hint: the emergency brake will usually not be pulled).

In other words: don’t pair on coding, it’s too expensive, but if for some reason you do want to pair please check all the boxes that make it work and make it a fun and productive, albeit expensive, experience. And do have a good explanation about why you think spending the extra money is worth it :)

Other ways to do the same

Given that:

  • we don’t have shared understandings about what’s a good IDE (me Spacemacs, you Emacs, she Vim, he VSCode, they Atom, anyone on Sublime here? Hey, there’s an IntelliJ user!);
  • we more and more want to work remote and please at our own preferred times and in our own preferred timezones;

what else can we do to promote the mixing of knowledge and early detection of problems?

Sometimes, a synchronous meet-up is still nice: I want to explain something, or demonstrate something, or show someone where I’m stuck in the debugger; open a Hangout or Slack screenshare, and go at it. Do note, however, that if you’re coding and you’re stuck that Rubber Duck Debugging is quite effective and does not require you to interrupt a co-worker. Interruptions are productivity killers!

A good way to reap most of the benefits and way less costly than pairing is the workflow I’ve used during the last years:

  • Break down work into small tickets - a day or so is ideal, three days is pretty much the max;
  • Do TDD as much as possible; it’ll help you drive the design by forcing you to actually use it in your tests. In a sense, TDD makes you flip between tactical and strategic thinking all the time even without pairing;
  • Do CI and often push to the CI system so you get feedback about potential environment issues (my personal practice is to not start a task unless both the CI and my dev env can run all the tests).

So far, that’s probably just good advice regardless on how many people sit behind the keyboard. However, it enables the following:

  • Grab work from the top of the To Do list whether you think you’re up for the task or not. If not, you force yourself to learn, to review documentation, complain about it, get told by your colleagues to fix it, etcetera. Stepping out of your comfort zone promotes knowledge sharing. Grabbing from the top of the To Do will mix up tasks between team members, further promoting knowledge sharing;
  • Small tasks limit the blast radius of your work. Inevitably, someone will start painting the floor and end up in the corner. Preventing-by-pairing is too expensive, and frankly, preventing mistakes is a mistake in itself; you need them to learn. Small tasks gives you a safe learning environment;
  • Hand over your work by submitting it for code review. I like to use a “ready for review” and “in review” lane. A team member looking for work will pull reviews before new work (according to the mantra “stop starting and start finishing”), review your code, and assuming it’s all good do the pull request merge and deploy (if not using CD). Only if major issues pop up you’ll be pulled from your work and you should hook up to review the design (I would, frankly, rather not do that through Github or Gerrit comments alone - they serve as useful annotations but, if possible, do have a 1:1 chat on the issues before going into a long back-and-forth about a design issue).

Small tasks enable rotation (the “Move People Around” practice of XP), code review enables multiple eyes on the code. As you move people around, you don’t need more than one extra set of brains. Adding two, three, four reviewers just burns time with little payback - rotation guarantees that everybody, in time, will be exposed to everything.

When to pair

I’d like to reserve the term “pairing” for the actual practice of XP-style disciplined Pair Programming, but that ship has long sailed. There are still circumstances where it is useful to pair up, but it should be the exception rather than the rule and used for specific reasons, not because of some abstract idea that “pairing is good”. Here are a couple:

  • Ramp-up of a new team member. Lots of setup needs to be done, and that is never documented to the extent that a newcomer can go at it alone. Also, ramp-up work can be less synthetic if you start collaborating on real work - the new member will feel part of the team quicker and get an early sense they’re contributing, which is typically not the case if your first month consists of fixing P4 tickets. Having the first two weeks of onboarding consist of a lot of planned collaborative work can really speed up the process. Investment here pays off, so the arguments on cost don’t hold.
  • Specific learning. A team member lacks a skill, maybe for the specific ticket that just got pulled in, and is the only member that has this knowledge gap. Do a 1:1 knowledge dump session where a more experienced person can guide. However, if more than one team member is lacking knowledge or skills, 1:1 sessions don’t really scale well so start with a tech talk, a group session, writing docs, collecting materials for self-guided study, etcetera.

People often argue that spikes and other off-the-beaten-path work should be done in pairs, but I disagree: spikes are tentative, throw-away work, often involve a lot of reading and puzzling and surfing the web (an activity which used to be called “desk research” but now is basically just hanging around in Google), and so on. I’ve tried that in pairs, but it’s inconvenient (reading speeds differ too much, meaningful collaboration on finding docs is hard) and by doubling the investment in a spike you’re not necessarily get a better outcome. Let one person go at it for one or two days and have them report back to the team during stand-up.

Team bonding

Often, people just want to pair because “team bonding” or similar reasons. Teams, depending on their composition, have various needs for specific activities directed at some form of cohesion, and I think a good scrum master or agile coach should be primarily responsible for identifying the average need, working with outliers to bring them to the average (or at least convince them to “play along”), and take it from there. Pairing may be a tool in the toolbox, but it’s not a panacea and certainly not a tool that should just be deployed nilly-willy because “team cohesion”. Some teams will be sufficiently cohesive without any work, some just need some ticket shuffling, and some need actual work; my preference is to let the agile coach figure out what’s needed and work with the team on explicit and tailored practices rather than just waste a lot of the company’s money on pairing.


Pairing has one known downside: doubling the cost of development time and thus potentially halving a team’s velocity. The advertised benefits usually are based on gut feelings rather than evidence; there is little research to support pair programming. Furthermore, reasoning from first principles does not support the advertised benefits like deficit reduction as the past two decades have seen huge quality improvements through other means and lower repair costs for defects; therefore, pair programming now has a steeper hill to climb to make sense. Pairing also does not mesh well with the current practice of individualized workstation setups, remote work, and flexible work times.

Overall, I recommend that development teams don’t pair as a general practice - daily standups, code reviews and mixing up small tasks should provide ample fertile ground for knowledge sharing. There are various specific situations where collaborative “synchronous” sessions make sense, but they should be called out explicitly.