6 ms·

Agreed. If there's one danger to our industry, its notions like this. (Most) humans aren't supposed to work 80+ a week. I say most because there are always tho

Agreed. If there's one danger to our industry, its notions like this. (Most) humans aren't supposed to work 80+ a week. I say most because there are always those superhumans you come across that just seem to be able to do it; but most can't. I always try to look at statements like this through the eyes of a would-be programmer. If I was about to start down the programming route and was told I could never achieve my aims without accepting an 80 hour work week then I'd run a mile.

adamors 13y ago
> (Most) humans aren't supposed to work 80+ a week. I say most because there are always those superhumans you come across that just seem to be able to do it I don't think they're superhuman, they are people who have no lives and will burn out in a short period of time. I can only feel sorry for them.
- amirmc 13y ago
  This thread seems to assume that there's a clear distinction between 'work' and 'not-work'. That isn't always the case as it's entirely possible that someone can love what they do to the extent that the lines completely blur (yes, that means those people could be exploited for that passion). An example of this is academia where every prof I've met 'works' insane hours but are completely (and happily) absorbed in their fields. The whole thing feels like a hobby to them. The only thing they'd want to get rid of is the paperwork (research assessments, etc) so they could spend that time with students and research.
  - tluyben2 13y ago
    Yep; there is no off switch for me for over 20 years already. I have a clear goal in life which happens to involve a LOT of programming and I work over 80 hours/week for all that time but I don't really see or feel it as work. The fact I make plenty money with it does not make it feel like work. And my family and social life is thriving (I seem to be one of the few people I know who makes new really good (I met 3 of my best friends while I was well over 30) friends all the time while being almost 40). I'm just 24/7 thinking/working on this goal and it involves 12-13 hours of coding/coding related work every day. So what? It's just a hobby which happens to be something people pay well for. I hope I never reach my goal; i'm happy always as I have this goal, it's like a religion I guess, it gets me up in the morning, gives me energy when I need it etc. If you do stuff you don't really like or it's 'just' a job then I wouldn't even work 40 hours for it, but I really don't see what's wrong with 'always on' if this happens to be your life.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    The "work is their passion so it's not work" contrarian-ism is certainly not uncommon. But the argument against 80 hours is generally stress-induced health and productivity related. Given, if a person "loves what they do" then the stress part is probably lower, reducing the negative effects of the first. But the other argument is that, after so many hours, returns on effort are reduced, and I don't see a good argument for this being not true whether a person is in love with their vocation. I would posit that a likely scenario, is that the 80-hour-a-weeker's passion for their work their concern for efficiency. They don't get as much done per hour, but they don't care as much because they love the parts even where they are just plodding along.
    - anaphor 13y ago
      I agree, arguably one of the most productive programmers of all time apparently still manages to get 8 hours of sleep usually: "Losing sleep to hit a deadline the next day is valid, but it isn't a productivity enhancer. I have always needed a full 8hrs for good work." https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/436351780243259393 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/436351780243259393
    - eropple 13y ago
      It gets a bit fuzzy when what you do for a job is also a fun hobby. I don't spend 40 hours a week hacking on code outside the office, but a productive week (working on my game or on another side project) might put me around 20.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      You have to be doing something for all the hours in the week. We don't get stresses out playing tennis or having sex (well...) or going to the movies. So its got more to do with extended concentration on one task, vs the actual hours? If the work has several tasks (e.g. rehearsing, the gig, songwriting, negotiating) then maybe its not the same as sitting in front of a screen the same time.
      - mattlutze 13y ago
        I'd ask the professional tennis player or porn star if their jobs are/would be stressful at 80 hrs per week... but in the spirit of it I can definitely agree. The multitude of tasks bit is true. Where my BS meter starts to twitch is when it's a developer telling me that they've been hacking 12 hours a day for x years and feel fit as a fiddle. In those instances, I've gotta imagine the quality output vs. time quotient is lower per capita than the average 30-50 hour per week dev.
  - edgarallenbro 13y ago
    This. Compare it to other things, say for example, musicians. When a band goes on tour, it could be looked at like they're putting in 168 hours a week. Really though, they're doing maybe 8 hours a week of actually playing in front of people, maybe like 5-15 hours of practice, and that's all the solid "work" they're doing. That's not where the job ends though...100% of their life is their job because they are always potentially writing new material.
  - zaccus 13y ago
    >This thread seems to assume that there's a clear distinction between 'work' and 'not-work'. If I'm coding for someone else in exchange for money, that's work. If I do it on my own time for free, it's not work. That's a pretty clear distinction, since I can't do both at once.
- gearoidoc 13y ago
  I'd be inclined to agree with you but I know less than a handful of people who work crazy hours and maintain a great social life, and have done so for many years. Whether they suffer some epic burnout in years to come remains to be seen but I hope not for their sake.

adamors 13y ago

> (Most) humans aren't supposed to work 80+ a week. I say most because there are always those superhumans you come across that just seem to be able to do it I don't think they're superhuman, they are people who have no lives and will burn out in a short period of time. I can only feel sorry for them.

amirmc 13y ago
This thread seems to assume that there's a clear distinction between 'work' and 'not-work'. That isn't always the case as it's entirely possible that someone can love what they do to the extent that the lines completely blur (yes, that means those people could be exploited for that passion). An example of this is academia where every prof I've met 'works' insane hours but are completely (and happily) absorbed in their fields. The whole thing feels like a hobby to them. The only thing they'd want to get rid of is the paperwork (research assessments, etc) so they could spend that time with students and research.
- tluyben2 13y ago
  Yep; there is no off switch for me for over 20 years already. I have a clear goal in life which happens to involve a LOT of programming and I work over 80 hours/week for all that time but I don't really see or feel it as work. The fact I make plenty money with it does not make it feel like work. And my family and social life is thriving (I seem to be one of the few people I know who makes new really good (I met 3 of my best friends while I was well over 30) friends all the time while being almost 40). I'm just 24/7 thinking/working on this goal and it involves 12-13 hours of coding/coding related work every day. So what? It's just a hobby which happens to be something people pay well for. I hope I never reach my goal; i'm happy always as I have this goal, it's like a religion I guess, it gets me up in the morning, gives me energy when I need it etc. If you do stuff you don't really like or it's 'just' a job then I wouldn't even work 40 hours for it, but I really don't see what's wrong with 'always on' if this happens to be your life.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  The "work is their passion so it's not work" contrarian-ism is certainly not uncommon. But the argument against 80 hours is generally stress-induced health and productivity related. Given, if a person "loves what they do" then the stress part is probably lower, reducing the negative effects of the first. But the other argument is that, after so many hours, returns on effort are reduced, and I don't see a good argument for this being not true whether a person is in love with their vocation. I would posit that a likely scenario, is that the 80-hour-a-weeker's passion for their work their concern for efficiency. They don't get as much done per hour, but they don't care as much because they love the parts even where they are just plodding along.
  - anaphor 13y ago
    I agree, arguably one of the most productive programmers of all time apparently still manages to get 8 hours of sleep usually: "Losing sleep to hit a deadline the next day is valid, but it isn't a productivity enhancer. I have always needed a full 8hrs for good work." https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/436351780243259393 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/436351780243259393
  - eropple 13y ago
    It gets a bit fuzzy when what you do for a job is also a fun hobby. I don't spend 40 hours a week hacking on code outside the office, but a productive week (working on my game or on another side project) might put me around 20.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    You have to be doing something for all the hours in the week. We don't get stresses out playing tennis or having sex (well...) or going to the movies. So its got more to do with extended concentration on one task, vs the actual hours? If the work has several tasks (e.g. rehearsing, the gig, songwriting, negotiating) then maybe its not the same as sitting in front of a screen the same time.
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      I'd ask the professional tennis player or porn star if their jobs are/would be stressful at 80 hrs per week... but in the spirit of it I can definitely agree. The multitude of tasks bit is true. Where my BS meter starts to twitch is when it's a developer telling me that they've been hacking 12 hours a day for x years and feel fit as a fiddle. In those instances, I've gotta imagine the quality output vs. time quotient is lower per capita than the average 30-50 hour per week dev.
- edgarallenbro 13y ago
  This. Compare it to other things, say for example, musicians. When a band goes on tour, it could be looked at like they're putting in 168 hours a week. Really though, they're doing maybe 8 hours a week of actually playing in front of people, maybe like 5-15 hours of practice, and that's all the solid "work" they're doing. That's not where the job ends though...100% of their life is their job because they are always potentially writing new material.
- zaccus 13y ago
  >This thread seems to assume that there's a clear distinction between 'work' and 'not-work'. If I'm coding for someone else in exchange for money, that's work. If I do it on my own time for free, it's not work. That's a pretty clear distinction, since I can't do both at once.
gearoidoc 13y ago
I'd be inclined to agree with you but I know less than a handful of people who work crazy hours and maintain a great social life, and have done so for many years. Whether they suffer some epic burnout in years to come remains to be seen but I hope not for their sake.