I've ssh'd in to fix issues from my phone many times because I was in locations where carrying a laptop would have been annoying and my phone let me. In that respect having a device that was suboptimal but serviceable saved me from carrying around a device that'd be better to use but a pain to drag around.
I've written short stories on my phone or my tablet because I happened to have an idea in a situation where I didn't carry a laptop with me.
In other situations I'd carry with me a tiny chromebook to be able to do more things without having to carry my full 17" laptop.
There's space for many form factors of devices which would be horrible for short term use but fine as an option for occasional use.
This may well fit into that mid-point to me as something more convenient and open than my phone, yet substantially smaller than my laptop to the point that it can fit in my jacket pockets at least the times of year where I'm wearing a heaver coat (and I'm in the UK, so that's a lot of the year).
I just wanted to point out that these devices are still significantly less efficient than a laptop or a desktop, because it's non-obvious to some people - including the throw10920 a decade ago, who thought that doing development on a phone when they had access to a desktop was a good idea. I wouldn't want to give other people that same impression, just like I wished I had never gotten it myself.
For many people with good eyesight it is just fine to use a small screen for programming.
It's also not fine to use a small screen for programming even if you have good eyesight, as it will worsen your eyesight even if you hold it as far away from your body as you can with your arms straight - the constant focusing on an object near your face will cause your eye muscles to weaken and give you myopia. You'll also damage your neck unless you hold your phone at eye (or at least chest) level - something that I've seen literally nobody do.
By that measure, looking at any screen or reading strains your eyes but I don't think you'll be switching exclusively to voice control programming and audiobooks any time soon because oh right this is not habitual or productive for you. (And if you do, now it strains your ears... I guess life itself is unhealthy, after all it's known to cause death.)
And no, it does not mean it causes nearsightedness. This is grandma's tale. Plenty of people have 100% vision while spending inordinate amounts of time in front of screens. Research points out this is more about spending too much time indoors, no matter screen size get enough sunlight on your retina especially as child.
I can only imagine how much nicer would it be to do the things I often do on the go (messaging, issue management), possibly more (programming), with proper physical keyboard. Swipe typing is just not helping much.
No, it's quite clearly not. In my comment, I stated "While all of these things are possible on a tiny PC, many of them are very sub-optimal" - explicitly stating that the domain of the comment was about efficiency (and then later brought in the topic of healthiness). If you start responding to that comment with arguments about what is "habitual", then your comment is off-topic.
> I hate large screen setups and I love drafting emails on the go
I don't care about what you like doing. This comment thread is not about that. It's about what is efficient and healthy. If you want to talk about what you like doing, find a thread where it's on-topic.
> your opinion that it is somehow less healthy
It's not an opinion - there's actual research that shows that smartphone use is linked to myopia[1]. As for being relatively less healthy, the only intrinsic difference between smartphones and desktops is screen size, and therefore how close you have to hold it to your face - which is worse for smartphones than desktops. So, smartphones are as bad or worse than desktops along all relevant axes.
> probably sitting, too
Because the vast majority of people do none of these productive behaviors consistently on a phone while walking, this just means that there's no difference between smartphones and desktops - doubly so because you can (but very few people do) set up a standing desk for a desktop - with a treadmill, even!
Furthermore, there's evidence that staring downwards (at a smartphone) for extended periods of time alters the shape of the spine in bad ways[2]. This health issue ranges from "much better" to "nonexistent" for desktops, depending on how they're set up.
> By that measure, looking at any screen or reading strains your eyes
Not "strains" - trains. Maintaining a constant focal distance causes your eyes to start to adapt to that focal distance, at the expense of others. And yes, it does. Humans aren't mean to read or look at screens for long periods of time either - it's just better to use screens that are larger and further from your face.
> but I don't think you'll be switching exclusively to voice control programming and audiobooks any time soon
Correct, because those things are less efficient. I want to try to maximize both efficiency and healthiness. Because those two things are in tension, this leads to an efficient frontier[3] where I have to pick a point on it, and voice control solutions are not on that efficient frontier.
> because oh right this is not habitual or productive for you
Again, this is not about "habitual" or "productive", this thread is about "efficient" and "healthy" and if you want to comment about other stuff, then find a relevant place to put it.
You also seem to be trading critical thought for sarcasm - I would advise against that, as it is neither efficient nor healthy.
> I can only imagine how much nicer would it be to do the things I often do on the go (messaging, issue management), possibly more (programming), with proper physical keyboard.
Yup, I'm not saying that a phone-sized hardware keyboard wouldn't be better than a soft keyboard - just that both are massively inferior to a full-sized hardware keyboard. I can hit 100 WPM on a desktop keyboard - which is faster than every single volunteer in this European study of 37k people[4]. I can virtually guarantee you that, for any amount of effort spent practicing, you'll be able to type faster on a normal keyboard than a phone keyboard, hardware or not.
[1] https://aru.ac.uk/news/screen-time-linked-to-risk-of-myopia-...
[2] https://www.thespinejournalonline.com/article/S1529-9430(17)...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier
[4] https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/typing37k/resources/Mobile_t...
> In my comment, I stated "While all of these things are possible on a tiny PC, many of them are very sub-optimal" - explicitly stating that the domain of the comment was about efficiency (and then later brought in the topic of healthiness).
And I stated that you're wrong.
If it is suboptimal/inefficient/unproductive to you as it is not how you are accustomed to do things, then sure. But not in absolute terms. Don't deny the experience of other people, it is as real as yours. It is optimal for me, and what is habitual is key. I would not trade being able to do work on the go for being chained to a desk, a chair, four walls and a large display because it is less efficient (it's all individual, I need fewer visual distractions, being able to fit more stuff on screen is harmful, and same reason I don't do video calls).
Furthermore, health is not orthogonal but an important prerequisite for sustainable efficiency and performance. To take it to extreme, some people would drug themselves to be more efficient in short term, so what?
Being able to do things on the go is not only more productive (or efficient if you like) because I can do it anywhere, but because fresh air, improved blood flow, and everything else helps me maintain the health that underlies that whole efficiency business you are discussing.
And I countered every one of your arguments, and you never responded to any of them. Your statement means literally nothing.
> Don't deny the experience of other people, it is as real as yours.
It's an extremely well-known fact of human psychology that human experience and subjective perception are extremely skewed and unreliable. I encourage you to peruse the list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia[1] as you clearly aren't familiar with them.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter that the experience of other humans is as real as mine, because we're not discussing something subjective like what flavor of ice cream tastes best - we're discussing objective topics - namely, efficiency and ergonomics.
> It is optimal for me
It is not optimal for you. Your subjective perception is not an indicator of optimality, which is an objective measurement.
> being able to fit more stuff on screen is harmful
False. Having a larger screen does not require you to put more stuff on it, and allows your eyes and brain to not work as hard to see things than on a tiny screen.
> To take it to extreme, some people would drug themselves to be more efficient in short term, so what?
I don't see how that's relevant? I neither said nor implied that anyone should pursue maximum efficiency at the cost of their own health, and that's not related to anything we've discussed so far. I'm just stating that phones are both less efficient and less healthy for you than desktops - that's it.
> productive (or efficient if you like) because I can do it anywhere
You're substituting your own definition of "efficient" for mine, the one we were originally using. Bad form.
The definition of "efficient" being used in this comment thread is, roughly, "work done per unit time":
> Things like "writing PHP/Python programs" and "document editing", while things that you can do on a pocket-sized laptop, are much better to do on a real laptop or desktop. A tiny PC will strain your eyes, decrease your reading, typing and interaction speed, hurt your neck, and react slowly relative to a full computer - regardless of whether you're using a soft-keyboard or a physical (but tiny) hardware keyboard.
...and for that definition, no, you will not be more productive "on the go" with your tiny phone than I will be at my desktop with my multi-monitor setup and full-sized mechanical keyboard.
If you want to use your own definition, find someplace where it's relevant.
> because fresh air, improved blood flow, and everything else helps me maintain the health that underlies that whole efficiency business you are discussing
Is there some law of physics that prevents me from standing up from my normal desk to get up and walk outside, or even set up a treadmill desk outside with my desktop? No? Then why are you bringing it up?
Regardless, the claim that those things will somehow overcome a massive difference in CPU performance, productivity software, screen real estate, and input mechanisms is somewhere between "absurd" and "insane". I know people that have lived horribly unhealthy lives for decades and can still easily out-perform someone on a phone. (I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do: I'm not advocating for this, merely pointing out that your claim isn't backed by reality)
Your comment is composed entirely of ridiculous claims, denials of basic mechanics of human cognition, and logical fallacies. Notably missing from it are responses to the points that I made.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Egoce...
Things like "writing PHP/Python programs" and "document editing", while things that you can do on a pocket-sized laptop, are much better to do on a real laptop or desktop. A tiny PC will strain your eyes, decrease your reading, typing and interaction speed, hurt your neck, and react slowly relative to a full computer - regardless of whether you're using a soft-keyboard or a physical (but tiny) hardware keyboard.
Although ElCheapo may have thrown a lot of unnecessary junk into their comments, their point "The medium is the message, the form is the functionality." is still true - you don't want to use C# for tiny (kilobytes RAM) embedded devices and you don't want to use this pocket PC for writing code, even though you can.