> I'm not disagreeing that some people don't find it enjoyable, and some people aren't good at it. Like anything else.
I'm not saying that some people don't find it enjoyable. I'm saying that some people can't do it without risking their health.
> I don't see why you just wouldn't work at another company instead of demanding the company change its methodologies for you.
Most people do, or end up unemployed. This is a widespread problem with the lack of protection of employment opportunities for differently abled, and a reason why I find it immoral to refuse to make reasonable accommodations based on it, the same way I'd rather walk from a job than e.g. refuse to hire someone just because they're blind or deaf. That a whole lot of companies do just fine without pair programming, to me is clear evidence that it's a reasonable accommodation.
> I'd say the average dev shop leans more "lone wolf" anyway.
Either we have very different ideas about what "lone wolf" implies, or I deeply disagree with this. But in terms of not mandating pair programming, sure. I don't see that as an indicator of people being "lone wolf" type programmers, however.
But the existence of less discriminatory environments is not a justification for accepting discrimination.
Note that I have no issue with companies choosing to prefer pair programming. It's their business, though I'd probably still not want to work there (and that's my business). What I do have an issue with are those who outright demand it of everyone and are unwilling to make adjustments.
I'm not saying that some people don't find it enjoyable. I'm saying that some people can't do it without risking their health.
> I don't see why you just wouldn't work at another company instead of demanding the company change its methodologies for you.
Most people do, or end up unemployed. This is a widespread problem with the lack of protection of employment opportunities for differently abled, and a reason why I find it immoral to refuse to make reasonable accommodations based on it, the same way I'd rather walk from a job than e.g. refuse to hire someone just because they're blind or deaf. That a whole lot of companies do just fine without pair programming, to me is clear evidence that it's a reasonable accommodation.
> I'd say the average dev shop leans more "lone wolf" anyway.
Either we have very different ideas about what "lone wolf" implies, or I deeply disagree with this. But in terms of not mandating pair programming, sure. I don't see that as an indicator of people being "lone wolf" type programmers, however.
But the existence of less discriminatory environments is not a justification for accepting discrimination.
Note that I have no issue with companies choosing to prefer pair programming. It's their business, though I'd probably still not want to work there (and that's my business). What I do have an issue with are those who outright demand it of everyone and are unwilling to make adjustments.