2 ms·

good question! depending on the project, it'll normally be browser for reference (or if its web based testing as well, but thats rare) then I have about betwe

good question! depending on the project, it'll normally be browser for reference (or if its web based testing as well, but thats rare) then I have about between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the screen space left to have terminals in. I'll have one/two long terminals open with vim for the main file(s) I'm working on, then 1-4 smaller terminals for running the program/tests. if its a big project, then more terminals for reference (ie library one, library two etc.). Think of it more as having a really big desk, with loads of copies of the same reference book open to different pages. Its quicker to glance than it is to alt-tab. For me (and i'm not claiming this is a universal trait) that flash of screens where we switch context from one full screen to the other makes me loose context on what I'm working on. I have virtual monitors as well, all split into contexts, so one will have email/slack/$messenger one will have "personal" internets (ie timewasting sites) and a professional browser, thats logged into company services. If I'm doing graphics, then drawing/editing screens as well. I used to be a proponent of many monitors. I bought a matrox parhelia new to support triple monitors when they came out. (yes I am that old). However due to the way my mind works, I found that with three screens I would end up in a spinlock with two browsers open, one in each monitor, and not do any work.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
My eyesight is bad, and I use a 15" laptop with about 300 views open at a time. I feel no need for a bigger screen. I keep one window on screen at any time, full screen. I use 2 sets of 16 virtual desktops, tmix, emacs and brave. Maybe 10 instances of each app, and of within each maybe ten tabs. So that's a total of about 300 windows. It gives me zero visibility problems. I much prefer using my hands to change whatn I'm looking at instead of my neck.
thom 5y ago
Surely vim can manage its own display and you don't need multiple terminals each running their own instance?
- gpm 5y ago
  Vim can, but why in the world would I have vim do that itself when that means I have to learn/use both vims windowing system and my window managers windowing system? What advantage does it give me...
  - thom 5y ago
    I spend more time interacting with Emacs than I do my window system, so I am quite happy arranging terminals, database clients, REPLs and code inside that, and there are huge advantages to all those being able to communicate frictionlessly. It'd be very annoying having to constantly multitask.
    - gpm 5y ago
      I feel like emacs makes a much better case for this than vim, because it actually takes advantage of everything being one program (at the expense of rewriting the world, and basically being it's own operating system).
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  It can, and sometimes its quite useful. If I have long terminals, I can :split, which is a nice option to have. However a lot of the time the Vims are there for reference.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago

My eyesight is bad, and I use a 15" laptop with about 300 views open at a time. I feel no need for a bigger screen. I keep one window on screen at any time, full screen. I use 2 sets of 16 virtual desktops, tmix, emacs and brave. Maybe 10 instances of each app, and of within each maybe ten tabs. So that's a total of about 300 windows. It gives me zero visibility problems. I much prefer using my hands to change whatn I'm looking at instead of my neck.

thom 5y ago

Surely vim can manage its own display and you don't need multiple terminals each running their own instance?

gpm 5y ago
Vim can, but why in the world would I have vim do that itself when that means I have to learn/use both vims windowing system and my window managers windowing system? What advantage does it give me...
- thom 5y ago
  I spend more time interacting with Emacs than I do my window system, so I am quite happy arranging terminals, database clients, REPLs and code inside that, and there are huge advantages to all those being able to communicate frictionlessly. It'd be very annoying having to constantly multitask.
  - gpm 5y ago
    I feel like emacs makes a much better case for this than vim, because it actually takes advantage of everything being one program (at the expense of rewriting the world, and basically being it's own operating system).
KaiserPro 5y ago
It can, and sometimes its quite useful. If I have long terminals, I can :split, which is a nice option to have. However a lot of the time the Vims are there for reference.