I kind of keep a (mostly mental) tally of the week's hours and when I've done a full week +/- N hours, I've done enough. But because of N it's a bit hazy someti

I kind of keep a (mostly mental) tally of the week's hours and when I've done a full week +/- N hours, I've done enough. But because of N it's a bit hazy sometimes. If I can finish something in a day what could've easily taken three days, I'll probably end the week a bit earlier. And if I get fixated on doing some "simple thing" that ends up taking a lot longer, then I allow myself to work extra to get that squashed. It's important keep your conscience fair so that you know you can mentally match the hours with results produced. Programming isn't strictly about wallclock hours but wallclock hours are a good starting point for measuring a fair effort because your pay is likely to be based on the wallclock too. (Such as 22 days * 8 hours or so.) But some hours are indeed "thick" and some hours are "lean" and you need to balance those somehow. Otherwise you'll be working way too much or way too little in relation to what you are paid. If you only look at the chronographic units you will realize that you can't do so. If I'm walking in the woods and figure out how to architect some component, is that work or not? And how is it work if I sit at my desk for half a day and get nothing done? That's what you have to live with as a programmer and striking the balance is delicate business, but luckily it's enough that you only need to find the balance in the average. Then again, it's all about shit. As long as you get shit done the hours don't matter. And as long as you don't work too many hours to feel shitty yourself, the scheme is sustainable. That's the ultimate balance.