While I agree that devs should have fast hardware, I'd like to extend that to tech support and other such roles. Fast hardware (and software) lets you try something out; slow hardware makes it too arduous to do anything but the status quo.
Sadly, many developers use their machines in slow ways anyhow. E.g., I've seen one using Eclipse have every single file he might want open and selecting it from the list when he wanted it, involving lots of scrolling. Or if he didn't have it open when I asked him to look at it he'd ask what package it's in and go and navigate to the file. Whereas I go to a class in Eclipse by doing Ctrl-Shift-T, typing part of the class name and pressing return. (I use IDEA really, Ctrl-N) On the IDEA front, I used to have a licence but stopped paying for updates when I found myself working on two computers at once; IDEA's licence is not per-developer, but per-PC-per-developer and if it can detect concurrent use, it shuts down. I'd rather be free to use as many PCs as I like without having to purchase lots of licences. I now use the Community Edition, and it's excellent (no J2EE in my job, or rather, what little there is had already failed to be viable before I started work here and is now being replaced) though I do miss the structural search and replace, and the duplication detection. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > Joel Spolsky wrote about this quite a while ago. I even have a blog entry > about why developers should be given tons of hardware. > > It amazes me that they will hire a developer for $80k to $100k+ and yet will > only spend $1000 on a laptop or desktop for them to use. > > Joel bought SSD's for his developers when they were really expensive. His > logic was that it cut down on compile time and allowed for more iterations > in a day. That is definitely worth it I think but how do you convince > management that you need a $3000 machine while the VP has a $700 laptop and > can do his job just fine? > > Another problem is the build and support cost. I paid $2500 to build a > server and packed it with everything I could. That was 3 years ago and the > machine still has plenty of power that I haven't the desire to replace it > yet. Will probably be a couple more years. From HP or Dell though, that > machine would cost $4500+ and companies are not about to build their own > machines and then try to support them. > > The setup I had at Amazon I thought was ideal. They gave me a laptop and > said it was for connecting to the network, getting mail, and accessing my > desktop in my office. That was all they expected of the machine and it did > that really well. The policy on the desktop though was very nice. It is > yours, do what you need. Want a better video card, just get it approved. > Want more memory, just ask for it. Want a second Linux server for a project? > Just get it approved by your manager. I never felt a lack of hardware > support while there. This makes a developer feel empowered and capable of > doing lots of things. Why would any company want a frustrated developer? > Companies should give them every chance to succeed. They have jets and cars > and other tools for executives. Why not $4000 in hardware to get everything > they can out of the $80k+ spent on a developer? > > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> On 2 January 2011 10:34, Joe Sondow <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 1, 12:14 pm, Rob Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Getting someone else to pay for your things is always a great first >>> > choice ;-) But, the pricing model of IDEA has changed over time and I >>> > think >>> > many people not currently using it have an erroneous assumption that it is >>> > "too expensive" to even try it out. >>> > >>> > First, the community edition is FREE, both as in speech and beer. You >>> > can do quite a lot in just the community edition. >>> > >>> > The "Ultimate Edition" adds lots of bells and whistles for enterprise >>> > development. But even this is free (as in beer) for open source projects >>> > and >>> > for educational/training/classroom use. $99 for students and teachers, and >>> > $249 for a personal license to the whole thing. >>> > >>> > "Expensive" is a relative term, but let's be honest - $250 for a great >>> > tool is not beyond the reach of most software developers, in any >>> > countries I >>> > am aware of that have an established software engineering industry. >>> > >>> > Rob >>> >>> Rob, I still think IntelliJ is too expensive for people whose >>> companies won't pay for it. >>> >>> Community Edition is fine for desktop apps or libraries, but not web >>> apps. Some people consider web development more significant than >>> "bells and whistles for enterprise development." >>> http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html >>> >>> I use IntelliJ because my company pays for it. Companies developing >>> software should consider the pros and cons of buying IntelliJ >>> licenses. $250 might not be "beyond the reach of most software >>> developers" but by that logic should developers buy productivity >>> boosters like better hardware and office furniture? I would suggest >>> that $250 is not beyond the reach of most companies employing software >>> developers. >>> >>> Joe >>> >> >> Actually, that's a very valid point. >> I've personally bought my own SSD drive and 1600x1200 monitor in the past, >> out of frustration with the equipment supplied by my then employer. >> Done right, this is the sort of thing that can pay for itself with a >> subsequent pay rise/increased rate (it helps here if you're a contractor and >> can avoid the VAT) >> I was also able to persuade them to let me install Linux, which is a >> tremendous boost when you do much on the command line (I imaged the existing >> windows installation and pushed it back into a virtualbox installation, for >> various software such as MS office) >> Some companies, however, wont allow this sort of thing. It's >> pre-installed "standard" h/w and s/w only. Needless to say, I don't much >> care to work for that sort of firm. Given the daily cost of a programmer, >> it strikes me as completely insane the way in which some people will cut >> costs on such obvious productivity boosters. >> >> -- >> Kevin Wright >> >> gtalk / msn : [email protected] >> mail: [email protected] >> vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright >> twitter: @thecoda >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "The Java Posse" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > Robert Casto > www.robertcasto.com > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
