Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Pair programming claims to provide benefits over and above those offered by a programmer working alone. In particular, a number of studies have suggested that pair programming improves software quality. The literature speculates that the 'driver' (the programmer currently typing in the code) and 'navigator' work together in a complimentary manner, and that the nature of these roles may be key in realizing the reported benefits. Here  dispute two of these existing claims: (i) that the navigator providing a 'continual review' of the driver's work and highlighting errors (i.e. acting as a revier); (ii) that the navigator is focused on a higher level of abstraction that the driver (i.e. acting as a foreman). Our findings suggest that the key to the success of pair programming does not lie in the differences in behaviour or focus beten the driver and navigator. Rather,  suggest an alternative perspective (the "tag team ") and remark upon the proliferation of talk at an intermediate level of detail in pair programmers' conversations. This leads us to suggest that producing the type of talk necessary to work effectively together may itself be fundamental in realizing the reported improvements in software quality.
['Sallyann Freudenberg', 'Pablo Romero', 'B. du Boulay']
I am writing a research paper on a idea "Talking the talk": Is intermediate-level conversation the key to the pair programming success story?
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea \"Talking the talk\": Is intermediate-level conversation the key to the pair programming success story?"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Pair programming claims to provide benefits over and above those offered by a programmer working alone. In particular, a number of studies have suggested that pair programming improves software quality. The literature speculates that the 'driver' (the programmer currently typing in the code) and 'navigator' work together in a complimentary manner, and that the nature of these roles may be key in realizing the reported benefits. Here  dispute two of these existing claims: (i) that the navigator providing a 'continual review' of the driver's work and highlighting errors (i.e. acting as a revier); (ii) that the navigator is focused on a higher level of abstraction that the driver (i.e. acting as a foreman). Our findings suggest that the key to the success of pair programming does not lie in the differences in behaviour or focus beten the driver and navigator. Rather,  suggest an alternative perspective (the \"tag team \") and remark upon the proliferation of talk at an intermediate level of detail in pair programmers' conversations. This leads us to suggest that producing the type of talk necessary to work effectively together may itself be fundamental in realizing the reported improvements in software quality."}]