10 ms·

This seems like flaunting your budget more than improving your environment. Maybe I just need to get my eyes checked again, but for some reason my code just do

This seems like flaunting your budget more than improving your environment. Maybe I just need to get my eyes checked again, but for some reason my code just doesn't perform any better or write itself any faster with more screen real estate and I'm as productive on my laptop as I am on my big screen. 4K is not for programmers, code is for programmers.

maxk42 13y ago
Well said. I wrote code back on a 640x480 just as easily as I now write code on my 1080p. The only differences in productivity have come from me, as a programmer.
catmanjan 13y ago
What sort of programming do you do? Doing web development in VS2010+ feels very cramped on anything less than 2 1080p monitors for me.
- johndriscoll 13y ago
  "What sort of programming do you do?" Waddya got? When I do web dev, I prefer a fullscreen terminal for editing and a virtual desktop with a fullscreen browser for proofing.
interpol_p 13y ago
I find I am much more productive at home (1x 30" monitor + laptop display) then I am at work (1x 24" 1080 monitor + laptop display). The screen size absolutely makes a difference when you are working on a large project with lots of disparate pieces. When you jump between project-wide search, debugging, showing git diffs, and so on. This is especially true if you do graphics work and code. When you need to move graphics assets around your filesystem and into your IDE it's nice to have the room (i.e., not so many overlapping windows) so you don't spend time digging for assets, resizing assets, running scripts over assets. I consider myself very productive on just my laptop screen, but sometimes I postpone large architectural changes or heavy instruments based debugging sessions until I get home. There's less back-and-forth and a considerable speedup under certain workloads.
- johndriscoll 13y ago
  I do all these things in a terminal. I used not to. But once I started doing things the CLI-way, I never looked back and have yet to discover a tool offering even half the productivity gained from keeping my fingers firmly planted on the home row. However, if you are locked into using an environment where doing the things you've said requires mousing or multiple windows with tons of resolution, then you have my sympathies.
  - interpol_p 13y ago
    While I do a lot on the terminal, not everything is faster there. Jumping between symbols in your IDE is not going to happen faster on the command line because it's a spatial operation. You've located the symbol visually, clicking it to jump to definition is far faster than keyboard-navigating to it, or even typing it. Merging is better with a dedicated merge tool than a command line merge. I have to resolve conflicts one to three times per day and I couldn't imagine a non-visual merge interface for complex files where manual edits from both sides are necessary. Being able to see it all at once helps. There is nothing quite as good as Xcode's instruments on the command line — providing easy to navigate visual representations of your performance and memory use, graphs and other metrics. Having the instruments panel on a second screen is incredibly useful, the extra screen real estate is of real value here. Having to keep switching on a single laptop display is a pain in the ass. Obviously there are many tasks that cannot be easily sped up on the terminal, saving slices out from Photoshop (when your designer hasn't done it properly). And then getting the resulting assets into your pipeline. This stuff is benefited by extra screen space. But the main benefit is being able to see more code at once. And it is especially helpful in large re-factoring operations or with extensive debugging / performance profiling. As I said, it depends on the type of work. I can code just fine on my laptop but I tend to prefer coding focused features, or fixing isolated bugs. I find the previously mentioned profiling and architectural changes are better suited to large screens where more code / graphs / visual assets can be seen at once. You simply can't do "all these things" in a terminal. You can do a hell of a lot, but sometimes you need visuals and sometimes you need space. When you can see more code you don't have to hold as much in your working memory, your eyes can flick back and forth over your code and it makes it easier to see the dependencies and realise what you need to change.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nilkn 13y ago
I use two 27" monitors at work and would definitely feel a productivity hit if I were to go back to smaller or fewer monitors. I dedicate one entire monitor just to a full-screen terminal with tmux running inside. It's trivial this way for me to edit and view and compare multiple files at once. I typically dedicate half of the second monitor to a browser, for testing, and the other half to administrative applications, like email, Jabber, and IRC. The result is that the cost of context-switching is drastically reduced. I'm able to maintain focus for much longer stretches of time because I don't really have to ever completely switch contexts.
- Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
  A tiling window manager would blow your mind. Anyone whose productivity is improved by using tmux should really try out something like i3 or xmonad or awesomewm. I use i3: http://i3wm.org/ http://i3wm.org/ My vim-like config: https://github.com/SirCmpwn/dotfiles/blob/master/i3/config https://github.com/SirCmpwn/dotfiles/blob/master/i3/config
  - BadassFractal 13y ago
    I use xmonad on 2 screens, it's amazing how much better it feels than without a tiling manager.
- johndriscoll 13y ago
  For me, just turning my attention (and my head) to a second monitor is too much. I greatly prefer multiple workspaces/virtual desktops to multiple screens. I'm fine with completely switching contexts when the cost of context switching is 0.
  - nilkn 13y ago
    I guess I can sort of understand this viewpoint, but I barely have to turn my head at all to go from looking at code to the browser. I can move my eyes between code and the browser (for instance) faster than I can switch between virtual desktops.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chaz 13y ago
$500 is such a small amount to pay, it is easily recouped over the course of a year. $100k to pay a developer? Just 0.5% to break even through reduction in time spent, or increase in comfort, or decreased eye strain, additional time spent working, or improved retention. It can be a signal to potential hires that you spend money where it counts, instead of fancy foosball tables or a 75" plasma in the reception area. I always tried to get my team the hardware they wanted because it's such an easy problem to solve as a manager and can pay in spades. I agree it's not an automatic improvement, but I'll take that bet every time.
- johndriscoll 13y ago
  You seem like a very nice employer :) For many of us that have in the past (or still do) work for less-than-very-nice employers, or ones without as much money available to spend on hardware for their team, there was/is always hope in improving your own practices. I have spent a lot of time investment improving my own practices and I wouldn't give up CLI, workspaces or dvorak for enough 4K monitors to line a conference room with.
marmaduke 13y ago
I was thinking this as well and additionally praying I never work with code that requires debugging in 4K which may be inevitable if one is writing in 4K.
crazygringo 13y ago
I've always felt the same. A huge monitor has never felt any better or more productive than my Macbook Air -- just bigger. I mean, I just never need to be looking at more than one window at once. And when I need to interact with multiple windows (editor, browser, e-mail, docs, whatever), then I need to shift the focus to each of them anyways to reload the browser, change the code, highlight a new email, etc. -- so I always have to cmd+tab to the window no matter what. After all, you can only look at a single window at a time, and I never need to keep things open for constant monitoring or anything. (I do a little 'trick' with OSX, however, which is to always resize every application to use the full screen area, and keep it on its own desktop, so I never have to deal with the clutter and confusion of overlapping windows. And remember, dragging and dropping files etc. works between desktops just fine!)
- eloisant 13y ago
  I like to have the following windows visible at the same time : * Code editor * Terminal with the logs of my app * Web browser where I see my app running It's really one task, and focus is on doing this one thing (coding). But having these windows visible at the same time really saves my short time memory.

maxk42 13y ago

Well said. I wrote code back on a 640x480 just as easily as I now write code on my 1080p. The only differences in productivity have come from me, as a programmer.

catmanjan 13y ago

What sort of programming do you do? Doing web development in VS2010+ feels very cramped on anything less than 2 1080p monitors for me.

johndriscoll 13y ago
"What sort of programming do you do?" Waddya got? When I do web dev, I prefer a fullscreen terminal for editing and a virtual desktop with a fullscreen browser for proofing.

interpol_p 13y ago

I find I am much more productive at home (1x 30" monitor + laptop display) then I am at work (1x 24" 1080 monitor + laptop display). The screen size absolutely makes a difference when you are working on a large project with lots of disparate pieces. When you jump between project-wide search, debugging, showing git diffs, and so on. This is especially true if you do graphics work and code. When you need to move graphics assets around your filesystem and into your IDE it's nice to have the room (i.e., not so many overlapping windows) so you don't spend time digging for assets, resizing assets, running scripts over assets. I consider myself very productive on just my laptop screen, but sometimes I postpone large architectural changes or heavy instruments based debugging sessions until I get home. There's less back-and-forth and a considerable speedup under certain workloads.

johndriscoll 13y ago
I do all these things in a terminal. I used not to. But once I started doing things the CLI-way, I never looked back and have yet to discover a tool offering even half the productivity gained from keeping my fingers firmly planted on the home row. However, if you are locked into using an environment where doing the things you've said requires mousing or multiple windows with tons of resolution, then you have my sympathies.
- interpol_p 13y ago
  While I do a lot on the terminal, not everything is faster there. Jumping between symbols in your IDE is not going to happen faster on the command line because it's a spatial operation. You've located the symbol visually, clicking it to jump to definition is far faster than keyboard-navigating to it, or even typing it. Merging is better with a dedicated merge tool than a command line merge. I have to resolve conflicts one to three times per day and I couldn't imagine a non-visual merge interface for complex files where manual edits from both sides are necessary. Being able to see it all at once helps. There is nothing quite as good as Xcode's instruments on the command line — providing easy to navigate visual representations of your performance and memory use, graphs and other metrics. Having the instruments panel on a second screen is incredibly useful, the extra screen real estate is of real value here. Having to keep switching on a single laptop display is a pain in the ass. Obviously there are many tasks that cannot be easily sped up on the terminal, saving slices out from Photoshop (when your designer hasn't done it properly). And then getting the resulting assets into your pipeline. This stuff is benefited by extra screen space. But the main benefit is being able to see more code at once. And it is especially helpful in large re-factoring operations or with extensive debugging / performance profiling. As I said, it depends on the type of work. I can code just fine on my laptop but I tend to prefer coding focused features, or fixing isolated bugs. I find the previously mentioned profiling and architectural changes are better suited to large screens where more code / graphs / visual assets can be seen at once. You simply can't do "all these things" in a terminal. You can do a hell of a lot, but sometimes you need visuals and sometimes you need space. When you can see more code you don't have to hold as much in your working memory, your eyes can flick back and forth over your code and it makes it easier to see the dependencies and realise what you need to change.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nilkn 13y ago

I use two 27" monitors at work and would definitely feel a productivity hit if I were to go back to smaller or fewer monitors. I dedicate one entire monitor just to a full-screen terminal with tmux running inside. It's trivial this way for me to edit and view and compare multiple files at once. I typically dedicate half of the second monitor to a browser, for testing, and the other half to administrative applications, like email, Jabber, and IRC. The result is that the cost of context-switching is drastically reduced. I'm able to maintain focus for much longer stretches of time because I don't really have to ever completely switch contexts.

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
A tiling window manager would blow your mind. Anyone whose productivity is improved by using tmux should really try out something like i3 or xmonad or awesomewm. I use i3: http://i3wm.org/ http://i3wm.org/ My vim-like config: https://github.com/SirCmpwn/dotfiles/blob/master/i3/config https://github.com/SirCmpwn/dotfiles/blob/master/i3/config
- BadassFractal 13y ago
  I use xmonad on 2 screens, it's amazing how much better it feels than without a tiling manager.
johndriscoll 13y ago
For me, just turning my attention (and my head) to a second monitor is too much. I greatly prefer multiple workspaces/virtual desktops to multiple screens. I'm fine with completely switching contexts when the cost of context switching is 0.
- nilkn 13y ago
  I guess I can sort of understand this viewpoint, but I barely have to turn my head at all to go from looking at code to the browser. I can move my eyes between code and the browser (for instance) faster than I can switch between virtual desktops.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

chaz 13y ago

$500 is such a small amount to pay, it is easily recouped over the course of a year. $100k to pay a developer? Just 0.5% to break even through reduction in time spent, or increase in comfort, or decreased eye strain, additional time spent working, or improved retention. It can be a signal to potential hires that you spend money where it counts, instead of fancy foosball tables or a 75" plasma in the reception area. I always tried to get my team the hardware they wanted because it's such an easy problem to solve as a manager and can pay in spades. I agree it's not an automatic improvement, but I'll take that bet every time.

johndriscoll 13y ago
You seem like a very nice employer :) For many of us that have in the past (or still do) work for less-than-very-nice employers, or ones without as much money available to spend on hardware for their team, there was/is always hope in improving your own practices. I have spent a lot of time investment improving my own practices and I wouldn't give up CLI, workspaces or dvorak for enough 4K monitors to line a conference room with.

marmaduke 13y ago

I was thinking this as well and additionally praying I never work with code that requires debugging in 4K which may be inevitable if one is writing in 4K.

crazygringo 13y ago

I've always felt the same. A huge monitor has never felt any better or more productive than my Macbook Air -- just bigger. I mean, I just never need to be looking at more than one window at once. And when I need to interact with multiple windows (editor, browser, e-mail, docs, whatever), then I need to shift the focus to each of them anyways to reload the browser, change the code, highlight a new email, etc. -- so I always have to cmd+tab to the window no matter what. After all, you can only look at a single window at a time, and I never need to keep things open for constant monitoring or anything. (I do a little 'trick' with OSX, however, which is to always resize every application to use the full screen area, and keep it on its own desktop, so I never have to deal with the clutter and confusion of overlapping windows. And remember, dragging and dropping files etc. works between desktops just fine!)

eloisant 13y ago
I like to have the following windows visible at the same time : * Code editor * Terminal with the logs of my app * Web browser where I see my app running It's really one task, and focus is on doing this one thing (coding). But having these windows visible at the same time really saves my short time memory.