The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The case for collaborative programming
Open accessAbstract
This article presents a technical opinion in the case of collaborative programming for a large, complex system, in which two programmers are working jointly on the same algorithm and code. A field experiment was conducted using experienced programmers who worked on a challenging problem important to their organization, in their own environments, and with their own equipment. Findings revealed that all the teams outperformed the individual programmers, enjoyed the problem-solving process more, and had greater confidence in their solutions. Several aspects of this experiment make the results significant. First, there may be a tendency to dismiss results using small groups. Questions may arise at the value of these results if the collaborators do not perform twice as well as individuals, at least in the amount of time spent. The article concludes that the crunch-time information systems development will demand innovative ways to produce high-quality systems in a short time, with companies increasingly introducing new products. This rare experimental research is phenomenon considering the luxury of using collaborative programming while many companies are experiencing shortages of experienced programmer/analysts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002) · ACM SIGCSE Bulletin · doi:10.1145/563517.563353 · Cited by 88
Are Reviews an Alternative to Pair Programming?
Müller, M. M. (2004) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1023/b:emse.0000039883.47173.39 · Cited by 61
Understanding Accessibility and Collaboration in Programming for People with Visual Impairments
Pandey, M., Kameswaran, V., Rao, H. V., O'Modhrain, S., & Oney, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449203 · Cited by 54
Kuttal, S. K., Ong, B., Kwasny, K., & Robe, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445659 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Nosek, J. T.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 105-108
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2049329210
- Cited by
- 375
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.