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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
No. Some of us work even more focused on a single smaller screen even than having 10 BS windows asking for our attention (and I include debuggers in those, the ultimate hop-around time sink for some developers).
Besides, people managed to write software for several decades before larger than 14" screens became the norm. Heck, until the late seventies many people didn't even use a visual editor -- they only edited their files line by line in ed. And until the 90s even color was not that common -- there goes syntax highlighting (and many other uses of color).
So I don't think big monitors are any sort of necessity in the days of 15" laptops with excellent retina screens.