5 ms·

It's strange when monitor costs are being discussed while they are the primary tool for software development. If software developer produces $100k/year value, t

by p12tic 5y ago

It's strange when monitor costs are being discussed while they are the primary tool for software development. If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market. I've found the following worth considering: - It makes sense maximizing usable screen real estate, both in terms of pixels and area. Complex problems involve a lot of information and being able to view everything at the same time makes it easier to understand them. Personally I've found three 4K 32 inch monitors work well. - OLED allows working comfortably at low lightning conditions. - Many larger higher-end monitors support picture-by-picture, which allows splitting the monitor into multiple virtual monitors for separate inputs (2x or 4x per monitor). This is useful in case of multiple external test devices which can then be integrated into existing display setup.

ranit 5y ago
> If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market. This doesn't add up: 1% of $100K = $1000. You would spend _several_ $1000 for every $1000 of produced value per year. EDIT: Added "per year" at the end, thanks to Arcuru's question.
- Arcuru 5y ago
  How often do you buy a new monitor?
  - ranit 5y ago
    Every 3-4 years.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  Thank you for noticing this as well! Further, if a software developer produces $100k per year in value, the company is likely underwater. Very few developers cost less than $100,000, especially when taxes, benefits, tooling, etc are all factored in.
Bancakes 5y ago
I don't understand this consumerist mindset. A monitor is a monitor. Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice. Your thinking just incenivizes "Programming grade" monitors that are just overpriced regular ones. I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  > Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice. Surely it depends on what we’re programming? Color accuracy (and inaccuracy for accessibility testing) is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing. > A monitor is a monitor. Color accuracy isn’t the only reason to invest more in display quality. Viewing angle and refresh rate are important factors as well. Their relative importance varies by use case: of course refresh rate being more important for game development; viewing angle and even color accuracy can be important for developer accessibility (example: I have a lot of sensory sensitivities, and color warp/washout at angles is a constant cognitive burden even if I’m not directly looking at it). > I don't understand this consumerist mindset. Indiscriminately buying cheap goods tends to also be a consumerist mindset and behavior. It often leads to more frequent purchases and disposal, producing both greater cost and waste. Which isn’t to say all pricing—in technology or otherwise—reflects value or longevity. But blanket rejecting the possibility isn’t helpful in distinguishing that. > I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried. Even without addressing specialized use cases, it’s easy: low volume + high cost bill of materials. This used to be the case with IPS panels, and continues to be the case with newer/less pervasive panel details (eg OLED or higher pixel density displays). And again, whether those are requisite for a given programmer will depend on their work product and their own individual needs. - - - I won’t go so far as to say that everyone should arrive at the same cost/benefit analysis. But I will say that, in terms of tools to do our jobs, displays are very close to directly analogous to mattresses, chairs and shoes: oftentimes, skimping on cost is more costly than spending more upfront.
  - waste_monk 5y ago
    > is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing. I can see the need for cross-domain (e.g. UX or graphics) specialists to have high-accuracy monitors but for most devs I don't it as necessary, as generally speaking you have an IDE with a bunch of code (text) and probably another monitor with your terminals, web browser with documentation, instant messaging app, etc. pretty much all of which is text-based. >refresh rate... viewing angle and even colour accuracy can be important for developer accessibility With regards to viewing angle, I have a nice dual-arm monitor mount system that allows it to be easily repositioned (limited 6DOF) as I change sitting posture throughout the day. Maybe something like this would help you? I will say I usually score badly on colour perception tests (not colourblind, rather the tests where you have to order a number of very similar hues) so I could be missing a whole bunch of subtle colour errors that would irritate regular users :)

by p12tic 5y ago

ranit 5y ago

> If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market. This doesn't add up: 1% of $100K = $1000. You would spend _several_ $1000 for every $1000 of produced value per year. EDIT: Added "per year" at the end, thanks to Arcuru's question.

Arcuru 5y ago
How often do you buy a new monitor?
- ranit 5y ago
  Every 3-4 years.
listenallyall 5y ago
Thank you for noticing this as well! Further, if a software developer produces $100k per year in value, the company is likely underwater. Very few developers cost less than $100,000, especially when taxes, benefits, tooling, etc are all factored in.

Bancakes 5y ago

I don't understand this consumerist mindset. A monitor is a monitor. Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice. Your thinking just incenivizes "Programming grade" monitors that are just overpriced regular ones. I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
> Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice. Surely it depends on what we’re programming? Color accuracy (and inaccuracy for accessibility testing) is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing. > A monitor is a monitor. Color accuracy isn’t the only reason to invest more in display quality. Viewing angle and refresh rate are important factors as well. Their relative importance varies by use case: of course refresh rate being more important for game development; viewing angle and even color accuracy can be important for developer accessibility (example: I have a lot of sensory sensitivities, and color warp/washout at angles is a constant cognitive burden even if I’m not directly looking at it). > I don't understand this consumerist mindset. Indiscriminately buying cheap goods tends to also be a consumerist mindset and behavior. It often leads to more frequent purchases and disposal, producing both greater cost and waste. Which isn’t to say all pricing—in technology or otherwise—reflects value or longevity. But blanket rejecting the possibility isn’t helpful in distinguishing that. > I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried. Even without addressing specialized use cases, it’s easy: low volume + high cost bill of materials. This used to be the case with IPS panels, and continues to be the case with newer/less pervasive panel details (eg OLED or higher pixel density displays). And again, whether those are requisite for a given programmer will depend on their work product and their own individual needs. - - - I won’t go so far as to say that everyone should arrive at the same cost/benefit analysis. But I will say that, in terms of tools to do our jobs, displays are very close to directly analogous to mattresses, chairs and shoes: oftentimes, skimping on cost is more costly than spending more upfront.
- waste_monk 5y ago
  > is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing. I can see the need for cross-domain (e.g. UX or graphics) specialists to have high-accuracy monitors but for most devs I don't it as necessary, as generally speaking you have an IDE with a bunch of code (text) and probably another monitor with your terminals, web browser with documentation, instant messaging app, etc. pretty much all of which is text-based. >refresh rate... viewing angle and even colour accuracy can be important for developer accessibility With regards to viewing angle, I have a nice dual-arm monitor mount system that allows it to be easily repositioned (limited 6DOF) as I change sitting posture throughout the day. Maybe something like this would help you? I will say I usually score badly on colour perception tests (not colourblind, rather the tests where you have to order a number of very similar hues) so I could be missing a whole bunch of subtle colour errors that would irritate regular users :)