4 ms·

We used to write great code on the original Mac’s 512 by 384 screen, doesn’t mean we were very productive at it. A 5K monitor allows you to view an enormous se

We used to write great code on the original Mac’s 512 by 384 screen, doesn’t mean we were very productive at it. A 5K monitor allows you to view an enormous set of workspaces and code, and sharply. It will cost you less than $300 a year, which for any decent developer is less than 1/2 of 1% of your annual revenues (and its tax deductible for contractors!). There is no way the increase on productivity doesn’t far outweigh that cost.

the_af 6y ago
What do you mean "we weren't very productive"? People were plenty productive with the original Mac. I was plenty productive on PC XT clone with a tiny monochrome CRT monitor and an Hercules video card. (I wanted to say I was plenty productive with my C64, but that'd be stretching it :P ) What I want to fight is this notion that once tech N+1 arrives, then tech N must have been unproductive. That's demonstrably false, a form of magical thinking, and not a healthy mindset in my opinion.
- smabie 6y ago
  But it's true. Developing modern code on a Apple 2 is unproductive. It's suboptimal, and worse. Maybe you don't want to use the word "unproductive," and that's fine. But larger screens, faster computers, and more expressive programming languages all contribute to increased productivity over the older alternatives.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Developing modern code on a Apple 2 is unproductive Are we talking about developing modern code on an Apple 2 now? If so I misunderstood the parent post, because they were using the past tense. In any case, consider this: how do you feel about your current suboptimal, unproductive hardware & software of choice right now? Your current programming language and monitor resolution cannot be used to code. It's simply not possible to be productive with them. Think I'm exaggerating? Ok. Fast forward a few years and let's talk about this again. Maybe you'll understand my frustration...
    - smabie 6y ago
      No, I mean, it can. It's just going to (probably) be less productive than what exists in the future. All I'm saying is that the productive/unproductive dichotomy isn't useful and we should instead talk about productivity as a continuum.
      - the_af 6y ago
        > All I'm saying is that the productive/unproductive dichotomy isn't useful Then we agree! I was pushing back against the notion that one cannot be productive unless using a { 5K monitor; three-monitor setup; mechanical keyboard; $YOUR_FAVORITE_TECH_GADGET HERE }. In other words: it's not "time to upgrade your monitor" ;)
- valuearb 6y ago
  Productivity = work/time It’s indisputable that modern screens, tools, etc make developers more productive than smaller screens, slower CPUs did. I used to have 30 minute compile times. Was I “productive “? Sure, I guess, but 20 second compile times make me more productive. And being able to see over one hundred lines of code side by side with documentation makes me even more productive.
  - the_af 6y ago
    I agree better tools have the potential to make us more productive. I also think some nerd/hacker types tend to overrate the importance of their tools and gadgets, because this stuff serves as a proxy for actual talent and it's easier to show off and compare (These are not my words, someone else said it elsewhere in this thread, but once I read it, it really clicked with me). It's one thing to say "I'm more productive with $GADGET". It's another, different thing to say "we weren't productive before $GADGET". I assure some of the old hackers, back in the days when they coded on a PDP-11 (or an Apple II, or whatever) where more productive than me and -- without knowing you -- I'm willing to bet they could be more productive than you. In my opinion the mindset that old tech wasn't "good enough", that leads people to claim "we weren't productive before" in absolute terms, is really pernicious and unhealthy. Mind you, I'm not saying all gadgets are equal. Faster CPUs to me are obviously more useful than a larger screen. Both are nice, but one is more important than the other. However, the most important peripheral, the one that makes the most impact on productivity: my brain. And I can't show it off as easily as a brand new macbook or whatever.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dingaling 6y ago
> It will cost you less than $300 a year Don't forget the cost of buying a new computer that can drive that display. None of our laptops even have DisplayPort outputs let alone sufficient onboard graphics for that resolution.
- valuearb 6y ago
  All Macs drive it.
- zlynx 6y ago
  An Intel iGPU can run dual 4K displays just fine, if it has dual channel RAM. I'm still upset at Lenovo thinking 16 GB should come in one RAM stick. If you have a Thunderbolt USB-C port then you have a DisplayPort. Some monitors accept it directly and will act as a charger and docking station. Others need a fairly inexpensive USB-C to DP adapter.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The cost of buying a new high end laptop is trivial in relation to your work value. I used to run a dev group of 40 people. Every developer got fastest possible pc with big screen monitor back when both were expensive, and their own office with a door. Added about 1% to the cost of each developer, but the benefit to productivity was at least 10-20 times that. And Not even counting benefits of reduced turnover.

the_af 6y ago

What do you mean "we weren't very productive"? People were plenty productive with the original Mac. I was plenty productive on PC XT clone with a tiny monochrome CRT monitor and an Hercules video card. (I wanted to say I was plenty productive with my C64, but that'd be stretching it :P ) What I want to fight is this notion that once tech N+1 arrives, then tech N must have been unproductive. That's demonstrably false, a form of magical thinking, and not a healthy mindset in my opinion.

smabie 6y ago
But it's true. Developing modern code on a Apple 2 is unproductive. It's suboptimal, and worse. Maybe you don't want to use the word "unproductive," and that's fine. But larger screens, faster computers, and more expressive programming languages all contribute to increased productivity over the older alternatives.
- the_af 6y ago
  > Developing modern code on a Apple 2 is unproductive Are we talking about developing modern code on an Apple 2 now? If so I misunderstood the parent post, because they were using the past tense. In any case, consider this: how do you feel about your current suboptimal, unproductive hardware & software of choice right now? Your current programming language and monitor resolution cannot be used to code. It's simply not possible to be productive with them. Think I'm exaggerating? Ok. Fast forward a few years and let's talk about this again. Maybe you'll understand my frustration...
  - smabie 6y ago
    No, I mean, it can. It's just going to (probably) be less productive than what exists in the future. All I'm saying is that the productive/unproductive dichotomy isn't useful and we should instead talk about productivity as a continuum.
    - the_af 6y ago
      > All I'm saying is that the productive/unproductive dichotomy isn't useful Then we agree! I was pushing back against the notion that one cannot be productive unless using a { 5K monitor; three-monitor setup; mechanical keyboard; $YOUR_FAVORITE_TECH_GADGET HERE }. In other words: it's not "time to upgrade your monitor" ;)
valuearb 6y ago
Productivity = work/time It’s indisputable that modern screens, tools, etc make developers more productive than smaller screens, slower CPUs did. I used to have 30 minute compile times. Was I “productive “? Sure, I guess, but 20 second compile times make me more productive. And being able to see over one hundred lines of code side by side with documentation makes me even more productive.
- the_af 6y ago
  I agree better tools have the potential to make us more productive. I also think some nerd/hacker types tend to overrate the importance of their tools and gadgets, because this stuff serves as a proxy for actual talent and it's easier to show off and compare (These are not my words, someone else said it elsewhere in this thread, but once I read it, it really clicked with me). It's one thing to say "I'm more productive with $GADGET". It's another, different thing to say "we weren't productive before $GADGET". I assure some of the old hackers, back in the days when they coded on a PDP-11 (or an Apple II, or whatever) where more productive than me and -- without knowing you -- I'm willing to bet they could be more productive than you. In my opinion the mindset that old tech wasn't "good enough", that leads people to claim "we weren't productive before" in absolute terms, is really pernicious and unhealthy. Mind you, I'm not saying all gadgets are equal. Faster CPUs to me are obviously more useful than a larger screen. Both are nice, but one is more important than the other. However, the most important peripheral, the one that makes the most impact on productivity: my brain. And I can't show it off as easily as a brand new macbook or whatever.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dingaling 6y ago

> It will cost you less than $300 a year Don't forget the cost of buying a new computer that can drive that display. None of our laptops even have DisplayPort outputs let alone sufficient onboard graphics for that resolution.

valuearb 6y ago
All Macs drive it.
zlynx 6y ago
An Intel iGPU can run dual 4K displays just fine, if it has dual channel RAM. I'm still upset at Lenovo thinking 16 GB should come in one RAM stick. If you have a Thunderbolt USB-C port then you have a DisplayPort. Some monitors accept it directly and will act as a charger and docking station. Others need a fairly inexpensive USB-C to DP adapter.
valuearb 6y ago
The cost of buying a new high end laptop is trivial in relation to your work value. I used to run a dev group of 40 people. Every developer got fastest possible pc with big screen monitor back when both were expensive, and their own office with a door. Added about 1% to the cost of each developer, but the benefit to productivity was at least 10-20 times that. And Not even counting benefits of reduced turnover.