Everyone can probably agree that a desktop is better if you have the space, don't need to move it and doesn't mind a bit higer power consumption. A laptop has some clear usecases to.
Desktop for work, laptop for when I travel and might have to work.
That plus having a trackpad centrally located and a second screen below my main monitor really works for me.
I haven’t used a desktop in 20 years. Horses for courses I guess.
But then you did say ignoring portability, so it depends what you value most, as most things do.
I have a nice desktop setup, 5k2k, keeb, trackball, stream deck, my laptop runs it without making any noise, slowing down, or otherwise misbehaving.
I can easily drive to the manufacturer's authorized retail outlet in the event that it has problems, which has indeed happened twice over the nine laptops I've owned from this manufacturer in the last 15 years.
YMMV. Brand not mentioned out of respect for the aesthetics of this thread.
The only thing I ever did with my laptops when it wasn't plugged into a docking station at a desk was surf the web, and I can do that from my phone.
I can't work in bed for hours. But I can for a half hour after lunch, take a nap, then set back up at the desk as I am now.
I lived without a monitor for several years, you get the hang of it. I did have to bump up from 13" to 16" so I can use it without reading glasses for a few more years.
I'm definitely more efficient with more real estate, but not in a way that holds me back most of the time.
I've also trained myself to type on a laptop in a way that's hard to describe but: left hand V to Q, right hand N to P/[, so at a natural angle for my wrists. I've been using a split keyboard for long enough that twisting my wrists to accommodate a narrow keyboard isn't something I was willing to keep doing. This lets me get paragraphs/pages written without pain, whether I'm at the desk or not.
Airplanes, coffee shops, recliners, internetless cabins... a laptop's been all I needed for doing everything from web development to audio synthesis algorithm development.
All that being said, I'm typing this on an M1 MBP and the perceived day to day performance is better than any desktop computer I've owned, even if it will no doubt lose out a 'real' workstation when it comes to running 24 hour CFD simulations.
But then again, the M2 Air has this bulky UPS called „laptop battery”, so they can afford such little lies as long as the OS itself won’t shit itself and die randomly. Granted, it happens rarely, but nevertheless.
Citation needed. This definitely does not match any of my experiences at all.
* Docker daemon
* backend container
* frontend container
* database container
* local web server
* browser with Gitlab, Slack, Email, etc.
No idea how dev work is suppsed to be mostly single-threaded.
Something similar can be said for Gitlab/Slack/Email - in the background, they could easily be using the spare CPU time rather than competing for time, and you wouldn't actually notice it. But they also should spend most of their time waiting around doing nothing.
So I think the claim is specifically true for some stacks with poor test coverage.
But if you have compiled code, it should probably be compilable in parallel (and if it isn't, you should be complaining to the compiler writer and/or refactoring your code). Likewise, unit tests should in practice be runnable in parallel - if they are not, they're probably closer to integration tests. Even integration tests should be writable so that they can run in parallel, because you hope to have more than one user acting in parallel. And you generally shouldn't be testing your feature development manually. Even if you prefer to visualise your process, you can code it up in something like cypress so that you can run them later or check up why you missed this special case when the bug reports come in.
So I disagree with the original assertion, but I don't think you've provided an effective counterargument.