4 ms·

The only thing that I have grown to despise a bit is timeboxing. Coding is a job and a hobby to me, and sometimes setting those hard limits kills my ability to

by fein 13y ago

The only thing that I have grown to despise a bit is timeboxing. Coding is a job and a hobby to me, and sometimes setting those hard limits kills my ability to improve code by forcing me into a rigid schedule. It turns what I view as play into unpleasant work, and that's how burnout starts. Sometimes its faster to come up with a solution without setting hard time limits, and just let your mind churn passively on a concept. I've always found a certain amount of anxiety associated with feeling like I have to complete a task in a predetermined amount of time. You should always have (and try to meet) deadlines, but the micromanagement of 25 mins per hour (example from the article) is just stressful.

markcampbell 13y ago
I agree with you 100% on the 25 minutes per hour being too short. Personally, (as I said in the article) 1 hour works better for me. Not too short, not too long. edit: woops, I meant 25 minutes per block!
hopeless 13y ago
I think you've misunderstood the Pomodoro technique if you think it's 25mins per hour. It's simply 25mins blocks of time, 5mins non-work, rinse-and-repeat. When I timebox, I use Vitamin-R which let's me extend the time slice to finish a task. Probably the hardest part is breaking tasks down into 25min chunks
- fein 13y ago
  I just used that as an example from the article. Honestly I think the idea of timeboxing may be useful if a person can't keep on track, but I don't have an issue with getting stuff done on time. One of the arguments from the article was that timeboxing can prevent "perfectionism", which I think should be prioritized and not restricted by a time constraint. Finish the important MVP features first, then, if you have time left, make it sexy and perfect. The thought of using a program to timebox, then asking that program to extend your time just seems bizarre to me. No judgments on your end here, I just do what works for me, and you do what works for you. I think that people should try to feel it out first, and if that fails, move to a structured technique. edit: just read my typo. mean 25mins/block perviously.

by fein 13y ago

markcampbell 13y ago

I agree with you 100% on the 25 minutes per hour being too short. Personally, (as I said in the article) 1 hour works better for me. Not too short, not too long. edit: woops, I meant 25 minutes per block!

hopeless 13y ago

I think you've misunderstood the Pomodoro technique if you think it's 25mins per hour. It's simply 25mins blocks of time, 5mins non-work, rinse-and-repeat. When I timebox, I use Vitamin-R which let's me extend the time slice to finish a task. Probably the hardest part is breaking tasks down into 25min chunks

fein 13y ago
I just used that as an example from the article. Honestly I think the idea of timeboxing may be useful if a person can't keep on track, but I don't have an issue with getting stuff done on time. One of the arguments from the article was that timeboxing can prevent "perfectionism", which I think should be prioritized and not restricted by a time constraint. Finish the important MVP features first, then, if you have time left, make it sexy and perfect. The thought of using a program to timebox, then asking that program to extend your time just seems bizarre to me. No judgments on your end here, I just do what works for me, and you do what works for you. I think that people should try to feel it out first, and if that fails, move to a structured technique. edit: just read my typo. mean 25mins/block perviously.