This seems to have attracted a lot of downvotes, I guess because it's overtly antagonistic.

But I too prefer to work on a smaller screen (and I have tried much larger monitors). I switch context and then just work in that context. I don't feel the need to be able to see a load of different things at the same time.

Really though, it's subjective and everyone should just do what works best for them. It's the same discussion that comes up with some people having 200 tabs open in their browser whereas others of us keep it really minimal.

I'm over a decade into working pretty much on a 13" macbook full time and that's my happy place.

>This seems to have attracted a lot of downvotes, I guess because it's overtly antagonistic

Not exactly antagonistic -- meant to give some historical context to answer the parent's question which made it seem like big monitors are some physical necessity that people just can't do without. It's not like big monitors where any kind of norm before at least 2000.

I know tons of people happily coding away on a laptop with no external monitors attached.

Well, the only part of your comment I was referring to was the "having 10 BS windows asking for our attention", because really I agree with you (and I upvoted you to try to help normalise the discussion).

It's a very strange thread to read. Judging by the downvotes, it seems as though there's a really negative reaction to people who code on small screens. Whatever people want to do is fine, but it's pretty weird to almost shout down anyone who does it a different way.

>Well, the only part of your comment I was referring to was the "having 10 BS windows asking for our attention"

A, yes, thanks. I think where big/dual monitors make more sense are for admin style work -- when you need to, non pun intended, monitor, several things at once.

> This seems to have attracted a lot of downvotes, I guess because it's overtly antagonistic.

A fine example of how it's really difficult to express tone via text (I read it as pretty breezy, not antagonistic), and why we should all attempt to apply the principle of charity to everything we read before assuming someone's being a dick.

I'm going to be totally honest—I personally thought the tone was ok but felt like I should err on the side of caution, lest I too suffered the wrath of the large-multimonitor crowd :-)

And that's the way it was, and we liked it, dag nabbit!

The core thing is that some people STILL like it -- including people who never lived in that era, and could trivially buy 3 30" monitors.

And not because of primitivism reasons ("who needs fancy IDEs" etc), but because of a quite concrete reason: increased focus.

In the era of 1000 distractions for programmers, it's perhaps more valid than it would have been in 1984. Then, if you had dual monitors, they'd still show just your code, some log, some documentation, etc. At best, xeyes.

Use an OS that doesn't attack you then. Ubuntu with i3 and I never see a single OS screen. On a 34" wide monitor it's editor, terminal, browser. Pixel edge to pixel edge. No fluff. No bullshit. No battling window sizing. It's like focus mode, only with more windows :)

+i3 life changer for programmer productivity!

That's some serious gatekeeping.

Keeping the gate of what?

As I wrote "some of us" prefer smaller/single screens for focus. If it doesn't work for you, or if you can manage NOT to get distracted by 5 open windows in 2 x 24" monitors, then more power to you.

It was your tone. It reeked of "real programmers" don't use debuggers etc.

Aah. I'd say real programmers use debugger when they make sense -- but lots of programmers use them to jump around checking this and that without any reasoning what is going on, and thus taking 5x the time of a simple printf.

Respectfully, I disagree with the notion that lots of programmers don't know best how to manage their own time and productivity. Of course, we can all stand to do a better job of meta-cognition and thinking critically about our workflows, but I trust that if most people spend a lot of time in a debugger, it's because it helps them get their job done faster.

Personally, I definitely find myself going through stretches where I just use printf debugging. (I work on a lot of hobby language implementations where that's often the only kind of debugging there is.) Then I remember, "Oh, yeah, debuggers are a thing." More often than not, I'm surprised by how much faster I am at tracking down an issue using one.

I know my post will also come off as smug here, but is the solution to perceived gatekeeping really tone policing?

AKA "an opinion".

Probably getting downvotes because of your tone, but I agree with the focus. I find I work much better on tasks requiring deep focus when I’m just on my laptop.

I agree in sentiment. This is why I love i3. Just the will down I want where I want. No OS fluff.

And once upon a time, people built automobiles with hand tools instead of power tools, conveyors, and robots.

You can still do that, of course, but you will not be competitive with the likes of Ford and Toyota.

A higher-resolution screen, positioned closer to the eyeball, can substitute for a larger monitor. But even then, that uses only a fraction of my available visual field. VR technology could eventually solve the monitor area problem in a van-sized workspace. But for now, parent post is correct, screens with smaller pixels are the way to go. Just stick your face closer to it, and it will look bigger. This probably means you'll need an external mouse and keyboard, though.

As a programmer, my limiting factor has nothing to do with my available visual field.

Has nothing to do with resolution, either, once I've achieved a relatively normal resolution. Today, that's 1600x900.

I don't think I'm "using hand tools."