Hacker News Reader

Comment by taurath | Hacker News Reader

Ah the never ending lament about programmers asking for nice things. Sorry, $4k in capital costs for someone you're paying well into 6 figures for to make your business exist isn't that bad. A fast pc is necessary depending on what you're doing - making knowledge workers more comfortable effects their output.

View on HN

In addition to that, I fail to see the relation between people who like to talk about programming through whatever medium ('metaprogrammers') and people who like to have decent tools to work with. Literally every developer I have ever met wants to have a decent computer, multiple screens, fast internet, and access to the proper software tools required to work efficiently.

It strikes me as an incredibly stupid argument to make if anyone thinks you someone is spoiled for preferring good tools to do the job. Imagine a mechanic who can only use even-sized spanners, or a drywaller who can only use 5-liter buckets at a time.

Maybe I'm not a decent programmer but I definitely don't want multiple screens. I would perceive such a set-up as unergonomic and creating too many distractions. Nothing against the rest, though.

Probably has more to do with preference and what you're working with. In Web programming having a debugger, the rendered page and your code all up is really nice. I actually have 3 monitors for this.

Doing other stuff you can have stackoverflow, your code, and a gui for version control.

Doesn't hurt to have the extra real estate for command lines, file explorers, email, a crm, remote support sessions, etc.

I think I need more monitors...

1 -> 2 made a huge difference for me.

2 -> 3 much less (so much so I went from 3 to 2 at home because I wanted the desk space back).

Working on one screen for webdev though is frustrating I agree, I hate working from my laptop now.

It depends on what you are working on as well. When Im doing UI stuff, I love having at least dual monitors. That way I can have the result GUI /web page open on one screen, code and console on the second. This lets me reload without switching windows or workspaces continually. When im doing backend stuff, I can have several consoles doing testing and also for example the design document open while working so i can glance quickly at it. In the end it comes down to what you do, and what you like. I now use a ultra wide 29" screen instead and it works equally or better sometimes. My second monitor only keeps playlists, IM and email open now.

For me, the main use of multiple screens is to separate the "place" where I'm writing from the "place" that I'm looking at - there are many cases where I need to look at something else while editing code or docs, and I'd want to do that without task switching.

So my code would be on monitor 1 and stay there forever, but the various things that I'm reading, e.g. input (documentation, specification, sample data) or output (debug output, logs, testing app) would be on the other screen. The alternative is a large monitor and keeping things side-by-side.

I only use multiple monitors because 4k/5k screens have not been affordable in the past 10 years. Are you saying that you don't need additional workspace on your screen or that you don't want a workspace divided down the middle?

That's your workflow. Some prefer two monitors. I prefer to have two computers and two screens instead of two monitors and one computer.

(double the keyboards)

Have you tried synergy yet? Im using it, and apart from some keyboard mapping issues its working quite well.

Why would you do that? Two keyboards sound a waste of time

I'm just used to it, there's no good reason. First, I had a desktop, then bought a laptop, kept the desktop in front of me, the laptop on the left. At some point the desktop left my desk and I only had a laptop, then after many minor changes over time [skipping a lot] I found myself in front of two desktops.

But it doubles the power! Isn't it how this work?

It depends. How do you coordinate the work between the two computers?

Currently, one of them mostly acts as a server, and I work with network shares and symlinks.

But that's how I work, I won't force it on anyone else.

And have you noticed that you only hear these laments when it's programmers? Nobody laments when somebody in the sales, finance, or marketing departments wants nice things. Hell, in the business side of many companies, getting a nicer chair and/or a bigger office is just as much a part of your promotion as the title, raise, and direct reports are.

But it seems that there are people intent on cutting programmers off from the same perks that MBA types consider essential. It would be one thing if this backlash came from management; at least that would make sense as a cost-saving measure, but in the case of this article, it's coming from other programmers. It seems that not only are programmers undercompensated, but other programmers are actively seeking to keep us undercompensated.

Is this crab mentality [0] at work or just ignorance of how non-technical people get compensated?

Either way, it makes me wonder if I went into the right profession. I went into software engineering because I love computers, and coding is fun, but I have to wonder if I'd be better off if I got my MBA instead of a CS degree and went into finance or marketing or something (I know I don't have what it takes to do sales).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

Exactly, all these things are tools of the trade - tradesmen spend money on the right tools for the job because that (and experience) is what separates them from the DIY-ers

on the other hand only a poor craftsman blames their tools.

A good craftsman never has to, because he has the right tools ;)

yes, that is the implicit meaning. But then are programmers, whose tools are generally provided by their employers, actually craftsmen (craftspeople)? That question being part of the general discussion around this post.

On edit: I should clarify there is another meaning, which is that a good craftsperson can do whatever they need to in their chosen craft with substandard tools - this is also the viewpoint the original post seems to ascribe to.

I personally like to use the simplest tools possible to achieve a task, even if that means I have to do more work to achieve the task, because then I don't spend time learning my tools. This means I use a crappy laptop with no external monitor, a simple text editor, the command line for just about everything. When I do end up on someones machine where they have the good tools I find that I am but a simple caveman, confused and enraged by the complexity of other people's worlds. All this does not mean I am a good programmer or craftsman, it just means I find doing without the better tools and hardware suite me better.

> for someone you're paying well into 6 figures for

My first programming job was $32k/year out of college(this was in 2011).

even then, as you are probably not employed for only 1 year (in which case the perks could be transferred to someone else) the costs for a good setup are negligible compared to the total mount spent on a developer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com