Then what is empirically wrong with trio programming? If the pair programming wonks actually have data to show that it is a net benefit, then they surely must have evidence showing that 2 is a good maximum on return.
Like to this day, I have never seen any reproducible strong evidence provided that pair programming is beneficial. And I don't know if I would call the occasional ad-hoc (unstructured) "pairing" anything other than what a normal person would call it: "two people collaborating like normal fucking human beings."
But if there is evidence that 2 is better than 1, why is 3 or 4 not even better?
So call it collaborative programming. People tend to work well with someone checking their work, and more than two is limited by human communication. You're creating a strawman that I'm saying "The more, the merrier". I'm not.
