3 ms·
Yup, constant context switching is costly. And yet most people's code (in my team at least) after 6-7 hours of work tend to be crap and is usually refactored l
by Dudeman112 6y ago
Yup, constant context switching is costly.
And yet most people's code (in my team at least) after 6-7 hours of work tend to be crap and is usually refactored later when they are fresh.
For it to count as "constant" in humans it has be in periods smaller than what period of time the individual can stay focused... Which is anywhere between 30 minutes and 1 hour, for most people.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> And yet most people's code (in my team at least) after 6-7 hours of work tend to be crap and is usually refactored later when they are fresh. I've observed that, and it's definitely the case for me too - but often, the choice isn't between crappy code in a day vs. good code in two - it's a choice between crappy code in a day and no code at all. > For it to count as "constant" in humans it has be in periods smaller than what period of time the individual can stay focused... Which is anywhere between 30 minutes and 1 hour, for most people. Don't forget to count the time it takes to spool up to achieve focused productivity. Which can easily be 30 minutes or more.