Nicholas Dewberry

2 monitors is the PERFECT way to handle development in the modern age. One main monitor for editing code, one side one for looking at notes/documentation and previews. When I see peoples setups with 5 monitors, I just roll my eyes. There’s no way you can pay close attention to monitor 5 and ignore 1-4. It’s in your vision, taking away your focus. It’s the worst with these people who have their monitors set up unergonomically, where they have to twist their bodies.

I used to be one a 3 monitor guy. My home setup had a very small table, and it was quite awkward. I’m speaking from experience.

I mostly do 2 monitors.

I’m also very frequently a 1-monitor guy as well. There’s a lot of times when you don’t need to have something on the second monitor - and you just need to lock in. For coding, and writing, it’s ideal.

CICD painline (as opposed to pipeline).

It’s annoying when you’re working on something, and it seems like it works (or it works on your local) but for some reason it fails in a later deployment step.

But it becomes worse if the iteration times are long. 3 mins editing code → 30 seconds to push to main → 90 seconds for the worker to start → 5 minutes before you can see the result.

And it becomes painful when the error handling logs are incomprehensible. Something fails and you either see a short, pithy and useless "error in service" with no information, or you see an overly verbose stack trace that is somehow just as useless.

The CICD painline.

Sometimes I feel like I finish one project, and a dozen more catch my attention. I’m always busy.

That’s a good thing, I feel. I’m always learning something. But I don’t ever feel "done".