3 ms·

There is nothing wrong with working 10 or 11 hours, if you want to. The problem is when programmers DON'T want to stay overtime. Have you read "In Praise of Id

by demian 15y ago

There is nothing wrong with working 10 or 11 hours, if you want to. The problem is when programmers DON'T want to stay overtime. Have you read "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand Russell? It raises some interesting questions. http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

Joeri 15y ago
There is something wrong with working 11 hours on a constant basis. Peak performance is realized on a 40 hour schedule. Doing more hours just gets less work done in more time, even if it doesn't seem that way. Those extra 3 hours are better spent playing video games, because then they produce some value, as opposed to no value. Of course, crunching works, and there are times to do that, but you can't crunch all the time.
- jrs235 15y ago
  I would almost argue peak [coding] performance is realized on less than a 40 hour work week schedule. I hate how I am required to be in my office 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. Somehow, filling chairs seems to be important. Management doesn't take into account the number of hours I think about the software development problems we face and their possible solutions and researching and evaluating how others have solved similar problems in the past. If I were to reserve doing this while in my seat, management and others in the organization would get mad since I wasn't actively typing away on my keyboard. It's also way more difficult to concentrate and remain undistracted in a busy office where people think you are readily available at any moment to answer any question (important or not) that they might have. This has been addressed before too... managers schedule vs makers schedule. Also, I prefer and believe I'm more productive mulling over the problem a few days, then coding for 10-14 hours for a day or two (while in flow) then taking a day or two easy or off to recuperate and re-energize. But maybe this is a personal myth I need to break... anyone know of any studies or info to tell me I'm wrong (just wondering).

by demian 15y ago

Joeri 15y ago

There is something wrong with working 11 hours on a constant basis. Peak performance is realized on a 40 hour schedule. Doing more hours just gets less work done in more time, even if it doesn't seem that way. Those extra 3 hours are better spent playing video games, because then they produce some value, as opposed to no value. Of course, crunching works, and there are times to do that, but you can't crunch all the time.

jrs235 15y ago
I would almost argue peak [coding] performance is realized on less than a 40 hour work week schedule. I hate how I am required to be in my office 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. Somehow, filling chairs seems to be important. Management doesn't take into account the number of hours I think about the software development problems we face and their possible solutions and researching and evaluating how others have solved similar problems in the past. If I were to reserve doing this while in my seat, management and others in the organization would get mad since I wasn't actively typing away on my keyboard. It's also way more difficult to concentrate and remain undistracted in a busy office where people think you are readily available at any moment to answer any question (important or not) that they might have. This has been addressed before too... managers schedule vs makers schedule. Also, I prefer and believe I'm more productive mulling over the problem a few days, then coding for 10-14 hours for a day or two (while in flow) then taking a day or two easy or off to recuperate and re-energize. But maybe this is a personal myth I need to break... anyone know of any studies or info to tell me I'm wrong (just wondering).