> Why rally racing and not any of the other races where competitors are alone? Why not soccer team for that matter? That seems closer to development then any vehicle racing anyway.
There seems to be two directions of analogies here. One is arguing from subject to analog. “Programming is like rally car driving so we should act like they do.” Pretty crummy argument. I’d have no answer to your “why rally car?” question.
The other direction is explaining from subject to analog. “Strong-style pair programming is like rally car driving.” There’s much less of a claim here. I’m just saying they have enough shared attributes that I can map how they’re similar and you may find that useful for understanding. So why rally cars? Because that’s the context that has the most similar method as the one I’m talking about (not that it’s the most similar context).
In the latter case, the claim of fitness is separate from the analogy. “This method is useful. It’s like one rally car drivers use”. There’s no “because” in there.
> I’m just saying they have enough shared attributes that I can map how they’re similar and you may find that useful for understanding.So why rally cars? Because that’s the context that has the most similar method as the one I’m talking about
It is fair to guess that nearly no one here ever sat in rally car. We know it has navigátor, but we don't actually know what navigator exactly does. And I genuinely don't see many similarities. It seem to be more about split second decision making in situation where you need to speed up or slow down toward turn.
You don’t need to have sat in a rally car. The split second decision making is the context, not the method. The context doesn’t have to match perfectly. They just share the attribute of “high cognitive load”.
Did you read the link I posted? The essence of the idea is you have one person who takes physical action, makes small decisions and take orders. That person is called “driver”. You have another person who makes larger decisions and gives orders. That person is called “navigator”.
The dynamic I just described is true of rally car driving and strong style pair programming. It’s not true for most pair programming or most other types of driving.
There seems to be two directions of analogies here. One is arguing from subject to analog. “Programming is like rally car driving so we should act like they do.” Pretty crummy argument. I’d have no answer to your “why rally car?” question.
The other direction is explaining from subject to analog. “Strong-style pair programming is like rally car driving.” There’s much less of a claim here. I’m just saying they have enough shared attributes that I can map how they’re similar and you may find that useful for understanding. So why rally cars? Because that’s the context that has the most similar method as the one I’m talking about (not that it’s the most similar context).
In the latter case, the claim of fitness is separate from the analogy. “This method is useful. It’s like one rally car drivers use”. There’s no “because” in there.