3 ms·

While all of these things are possible on a tiny PC, many of them are very sub-optimal - like how many languages are Turing-complete but not of equivalent use (

While all of these things are possible on a tiny PC, many of them are very sub-optimal - like how many languages are Turing-complete but not of equivalent use (e.g. assembly is not as useful as Rust in the vast majority of programming domains). Things like "writing PHP/Python programs" and "document editing", while things that you can do on a pocket-sized laptop, are much better to do on a real laptop or desktop. A tiny PC will strain your eyes, decrease your reading, typing and interaction speed, hurt your neck, and react slowly relative to a full computer - regardless of whether you're using a soft-keyboard or a physical (but tiny) hardware keyboard. Although ElCheapo may have thrown a lot of unnecessary junk into their comments, their point "The medium is the message, the form is the functionality." is still true - you don't want to use C# for tiny (kilobytes RAM) embedded devices and you don't want to use this pocket PC for writing code, even though you can.

throwaway290 4y ago
I used to think the only proper way of reading books is paper (or at least large format eink) but I see most people these days reading from tiny phone screens. Thanks to increased mobility they easily do it where it's too much hassle for me. For many people with good eyesight it is just fine to use a small screen for programming.
- throw10920 4y ago
  Whether or not a large number of people do something isn't really relevant to whether its efficient or healthy. Many people in the US have addictions to social media (unhealthy) and use few keyboard shortcuts (inefficient) and draft emails on phone keyboards (inefficient). It's also not fine to use a small screen for programming even if you have good eyesight, as it will worsen your eyesight even if you hold it as far away from your body as you can with your arms straight - the constant focusing on an object near your face will cause your eye muscles to weaken and give you myopia. You'll also damage your neck unless you hold your phone at eye (or at least chest) level - something that I've seen literally nobody do.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    No, it's about what is practical and productive and habitual for a specific person. I hate large screen setups and I love drafting emails on the go and your opinion that it is somehow less healthy than doing that while stationary indoors (probably sitting, too) is just that, your opinion. By that measure, looking at any screen or reading strains your eyes but I don't think you'll be switching exclusively to voice control programming and audiobooks any time soon because oh right this is not habitual or productive for you. (And if you do, now it strains your ears... I guess life itself is unhealthy, after all it's known to cause death.) And no, it does not mean it causes nearsightedness. This is grandma's tale. Plenty of people have 100% vision while spending inordinate amounts of time in front of screens. Research points out this is more about spending too much time indoors, no matter screen size get enough sunlight on your retina especially as child. I can only imagine how much nicer would it be to do the things I often do on the go (messaging, issue management), possibly more (programming), with proper physical keyboard. Swipe typing is just not helping much.
    - throw10920 4y ago
      > No, it's about what is practical and productive and habitual for a specific person. No, it's quite clearly not. In my comment, I stated "While all of these things are possible on a tiny PC, many of them are very sub-optimal" - explicitly stating that the domain of the comment was about efficiency (and then later brought in the topic of healthiness). If you start responding to that comment with arguments about what is "habitual", then your comment is off-topic. > I hate large screen setups and I love drafting emails on the go I don't care about what you like doing. This comment thread is not about that. It's about what is efficient and healthy. If you want to talk about what you like doing, find a thread where it's on-topic. > your opinion that it is somehow less healthy It's not an opinion - there's actual research that shows that smartphone use is linked to myopia[1]. As for being relatively less healthy, the only intrinsic difference between smartphones and desktops is screen size, and therefore how close you have to hold it to your face - which is worse for smartphones than desktops. So, smartphones are as bad or worse than desktops along all relevant axes. > probably sitting, too Because the vast majority of people do none of these productive behaviors consistently on a phone while walking, this just means that there's no difference between smartphones and desktops - doubly so because you can (but very few people do) set up a standing desk for a desktop - with a treadmill, even! Furthermore, there's evidence that staring downwards (at a smartphone) for extended periods of time alters the shape of the spine in bad ways[2]. This health issue ranges from "much better" to "nonexistent" for desktops, depending on how they're set up. > By that measure, looking at any screen or reading strains your eyes Not "strains" - trains. Maintaining a constant focal distance causes your eyes to start to adapt to that focal distance, at the expense of others. And yes, it does. Humans aren't mean to read or look at screens for long periods of time either - it's just better to use screens that are larger and further from your face. > but I don't think you'll be switching exclusively to voice control programming and audiobooks any time soon Correct, because those things are less efficient. I want to try to maximize both efficiency and healthiness. Because those two things are in tension, this leads to an efficient frontier[3] where I have to pick a point on it, and voice control solutions are not on that efficient frontier. > because oh right this is not habitual or productive for you Again, this is not about "habitual" or "productive", this thread is about "efficient" and "healthy" and if you want to comment about other stuff, then find a relevant place to put it. You also seem to be trading critical thought for sarcasm - I would advise against that, as it is neither efficient nor healthy. > I can only imagine how much nicer would it be to do the things I often do on the go (messaging, issue management), possibly more (programming), with proper physical keyboard. Yup, I'm not saying that a phone-sized hardware keyboard wouldn't be better than a soft keyboard - just that both are massively inferior to a full-sized hardware keyboard. I can hit 100 WPM on a desktop keyboard - which is faster than every single volunteer in this European study of 37k people[4]. I can virtually guarantee you that, for any amount of effort spent practicing, you'll be able to type faster on a normal keyboard than a phone keyboard, hardware or not. [1] https://aru.ac.uk/news/screen-time-linked-to-risk-of-myopia-in-young-people https://aru.ac.uk/news/screen-time-linked-to-risk-of-myopia-... [2] https://www.thespinejournalonline.com/article/S1529-9430(17)30096-7/fulltext https://www.thespinejournalonline.com/article/S1529-9430(17)... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier [4] https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/typing37k/resources/Mobile_typing_study.pdf https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/typing37k/resources/Mobile_t...
vidarh 4y ago
Yes, it's suboptimal, but in many situations so is carrying around a full laptop, and the question becomes simply which tradeoffs works for you. I've ssh'd in to fix issues from my phone many times because I was in locations where carrying a laptop would have been annoying and my phone let me. In that respect having a device that was suboptimal but serviceable saved me from carrying around a device that'd be better to use but a pain to drag around. I've written short stories on my phone or my tablet because I happened to have an idea in a situation where I didn't carry a laptop with me. In other situations I'd carry with me a tiny chromebook to be able to do more things without having to carry my full 17" laptop. There's space for many form factors of devices which would be horrible for short term use but fine as an option for occasional use. This may well fit into that mid-point to me as something more convenient and open than my phone, yet substantially smaller than my laptop to the point that it can fit in my jacket pockets at least the times of year where I'm wearing a heaver coat (and I'm in the UK, so that's a lot of the year).
- throw10920 4y ago
  Yup, absolutely. It's definitely true that it's better to have a more-capable device in your pocket than a less-capable one when a laptop or desktop isn't feasible - I completely agree. I just wanted to point out that these devices are still significantly less efficient than a laptop or a desktop, because it's non-obvious to some people - including the throw10920 a decade ago, who thought that doing development on a phone when they had access to a desktop was a good idea. I wouldn't want to give other people that same impression, just like I wished I had never gotten it myself.

throwaway290 4y ago

I used to think the only proper way of reading books is paper (or at least large format eink) but I see most people these days reading from tiny phone screens. Thanks to increased mobility they easily do it where it's too much hassle for me. For many people with good eyesight it is just fine to use a small screen for programming.

throw10920 4y ago
Whether or not a large number of people do something isn't really relevant to whether its efficient or healthy. Many people in the US have addictions to social media (unhealthy) and use few keyboard shortcuts (inefficient) and draft emails on phone keyboards (inefficient). It's also not fine to use a small screen for programming even if you have good eyesight, as it will worsen your eyesight even if you hold it as far away from your body as you can with your arms straight - the constant focusing on an object near your face will cause your eye muscles to weaken and give you myopia. You'll also damage your neck unless you hold your phone at eye (or at least chest) level - something that I've seen literally nobody do.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  No, it's about what is practical and productive and habitual for a specific person. I hate large screen setups and I love drafting emails on the go and your opinion that it is somehow less healthy than doing that while stationary indoors (probably sitting, too) is just that, your opinion. By that measure, looking at any screen or reading strains your eyes but I don't think you'll be switching exclusively to voice control programming and audiobooks any time soon because oh right this is not habitual or productive for you. (And if you do, now it strains your ears... I guess life itself is unhealthy, after all it's known to cause death.) And no, it does not mean it causes nearsightedness. This is grandma's tale. Plenty of people have 100% vision while spending inordinate amounts of time in front of screens. Research points out this is more about spending too much time indoors, no matter screen size get enough sunlight on your retina especially as child. I can only imagine how much nicer would it be to do the things I often do on the go (messaging, issue management), possibly more (programming), with proper physical keyboard. Swipe typing is just not helping much.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > No, it's about what is practical and productive and habitual for a specific person. No, it's quite clearly not. In my comment, I stated "While all of these things are possible on a tiny PC, many of them are very sub-optimal" - explicitly stating that the domain of the comment was about efficiency (and then later brought in the topic of healthiness). If you start responding to that comment with arguments about what is "habitual", then your comment is off-topic. > I hate large screen setups and I love drafting emails on the go I don't care about what you like doing. This comment thread is not about that. It's about what is efficient and healthy. If you want to talk about what you like doing, find a thread where it's on-topic. > your opinion that it is somehow less healthy It's not an opinion - there's actual research that shows that smartphone use is linked to myopia[1]. As for being relatively less healthy, the only intrinsic difference between smartphones and desktops is screen size, and therefore how close you have to hold it to your face - which is worse for smartphones than desktops. So, smartphones are as bad or worse than desktops along all relevant axes. > probably sitting, too Because the vast majority of people do none of these productive behaviors consistently on a phone while walking, this just means that there's no difference between smartphones and desktops - doubly so because you can (but very few people do) set up a standing desk for a desktop - with a treadmill, even! Furthermore, there's evidence that staring downwards (at a smartphone) for extended periods of time alters the shape of the spine in bad ways[2]. This health issue ranges from "much better" to "nonexistent" for desktops, depending on how they're set up. > By that measure, looking at any screen or reading strains your eyes Not "strains" - trains. Maintaining a constant focal distance causes your eyes to start to adapt to that focal distance, at the expense of others. And yes, it does. Humans aren't mean to read or look at screens for long periods of time either - it's just better to use screens that are larger and further from your face. > but I don't think you'll be switching exclusively to voice control programming and audiobooks any time soon Correct, because those things are less efficient. I want to try to maximize both efficiency and healthiness. Because those two things are in tension, this leads to an efficient frontier[3] where I have to pick a point on it, and voice control solutions are not on that efficient frontier. > because oh right this is not habitual or productive for you Again, this is not about "habitual" or "productive", this thread is about "efficient" and "healthy" and if you want to comment about other stuff, then find a relevant place to put it. You also seem to be trading critical thought for sarcasm - I would advise against that, as it is neither efficient nor healthy. > I can only imagine how much nicer would it be to do the things I often do on the go (messaging, issue management), possibly more (programming), with proper physical keyboard. Yup, I'm not saying that a phone-sized hardware keyboard wouldn't be better than a soft keyboard - just that both are massively inferior to a full-sized hardware keyboard. I can hit 100 WPM on a desktop keyboard - which is faster than every single volunteer in this European study of 37k people[4]. I can virtually guarantee you that, for any amount of effort spent practicing, you'll be able to type faster on a normal keyboard than a phone keyboard, hardware or not. [1] https://aru.ac.uk/news/screen-time-linked-to-risk-of-myopia-in-young-people https://aru.ac.uk/news/screen-time-linked-to-risk-of-myopia-... [2] https://www.thespinejournalonline.com/article/S1529-9430(17)30096-7/fulltext https://www.thespinejournalonline.com/article/S1529-9430(17)... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier [4] https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/typing37k/resources/Mobile_typing_study.pdf https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/typing37k/resources/Mobile_t...

vidarh 4y ago

Yes, it's suboptimal, but in many situations so is carrying around a full laptop, and the question becomes simply which tradeoffs works for you. I've ssh'd in to fix issues from my phone many times because I was in locations where carrying a laptop would have been annoying and my phone let me. In that respect having a device that was suboptimal but serviceable saved me from carrying around a device that'd be better to use but a pain to drag around. I've written short stories on my phone or my tablet because I happened to have an idea in a situation where I didn't carry a laptop with me. In other situations I'd carry with me a tiny chromebook to be able to do more things without having to carry my full 17" laptop. There's space for many form factors of devices which would be horrible for short term use but fine as an option for occasional use. This may well fit into that mid-point to me as something more convenient and open than my phone, yet substantially smaller than my laptop to the point that it can fit in my jacket pockets at least the times of year where I'm wearing a heaver coat (and I'm in the UK, so that's a lot of the year).

throw10920 4y ago
Yup, absolutely. It's definitely true that it's better to have a more-capable device in your pocket than a less-capable one when a laptop or desktop isn't feasible - I completely agree. I just wanted to point out that these devices are still significantly less efficient than a laptop or a desktop, because it's non-obvious to some people - including the throw10920 a decade ago, who thought that doing development on a phone when they had access to a desktop was a good idea. I wouldn't want to give other people that same impression, just like I wished I had never gotten it myself.