• Von_Broheim@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Had an ultra wide for a while, went back to 2 27" monitors after 2 years. 2 monitors is more convenient imo. I can flip one vertical whenever. Less fiddly to have multiple things open at once. One is centered while the other is on the side and angled, much nicer way of separating what’s my focus. Easier to screen share. I always found the curve distracting for text.

      • Magnus Åhall@lemmy.ahall.se
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have a 49" ultrawide, running a tiling window manager under Linux.

        I heavily utilize virtual desktops in my workflow. Always 10 on each monitor, accessed by Ctrl-{0…9}. Switching between monitors by AltGr+{1…n}. Programs always stay on the same virtual desktop no, so terminals on 2, browsers on 3 and so on. This enables me to access more or less any window in under a second, never having to look for it visually.

        I usually work with 4 or 5 24" monitors, as a single program seldom needs more space for me. What he ultrawide brings to the table is the capability under Linux to create arbitrary virtual monitors.

        I can for example have two evenly created monitors (two 27"). My usual for development is three, split as 2:3:2.

        Another possibility is using a small script that analyses movie resolution and creates two monitors, one with the exact aspect ratio of the movie, eliminating black borders, and another for using while watching said movie :)

        As Linux sees them as separate monitors, I can also have easily managed screen sharing.

        Having the flexibility of software defining my monitors has been great as a developer; separation of many, screenwise often small, applications is highly useful to me. A couple of quick scripts to switch between different setups has integrated it nicely into the workflow, and I usually changes monitor config at least a couple of times per day.

      • VanillaGorilla@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It does, but it depends on the tool. Zoom lets you simply draw a rectangle which will be shared, I typically select 2/3 of my screen. It’s great when all have the same screen though.

  • Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jfc. Do people really write code like this? I’ve been writing code in Java for 15+ years and have never seen anything like this.

    You need more skill, not a wider monitor. SMH.

    • words_number@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hello world in Java:

      class 9-A {
          public static endangered therefore protected final void main(String[] args) {
              System.prepareTheOutputBufferForPrintingAsTheNextStatementWillDoSo(args);
              System.in.out.in.out.shake.it.all.around("Java is a programming language " +
                  "invented by the intelligent monkeys " +
                  "working at Sun Microsystems.");
              return void; // duh!
          }
       }
      
      • Coreidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        ROFL you’ve proved my point. Just because Java gives you an opportunity to hang yourself doesn’t mean you should or have to.

        You took one line of code and turned it into a novel. Bad programmers do this and then ignorant folks blame it on the language when it’s really just a lack of knowledge/skill.

        • words_number@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You must be fun at parties! Seriously, this is a meme sub and the wildly exaggerated helloworld example I pasted (from this hilarious article) is obviously satire. I agree, that

          1. There are way worse programming languages than Java
          2. The verbosity is not the biggest problem of java, it is rather the dogmatic OOP paradigm that sucks.
      • Scoopta@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get making fun of java’s verbosity for things like checked exceptions but hello world really isn’t that much worse than most other languages especially considering all the “boilerplate” is required for any program more complicated than hello world in pretty much every language. But if a useless program really is too verbose for you see java 21.

        void main() {
          System.out.println("hello world");
        }
        
    • Von_Broheim@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, you never see this in enterprise settings. Sure builders or streams can get a bit long but you just pop each .x() on a new line.

      And when they’re on new lines intellij has a cool feature where it creates a little UI only comment next to the line showing what type it returns.

      • XaeroDegreaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In an enterprise setting we’d definitely create a method in that object what would have that chain in it, and call that instead… It seems like it’s used over, and over again.

        Anyhow, we’re sitting here trying to make sense of something that obviously some sort of joke haha.

        Man we’re such fucking nerds.

    • muhanga@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Somewhere someone probably does… But this piece of code really look like someone either tried to inline a bunch of calls or this is code generated object mapper from json or other nested model.

      Nobody with a sane mind and serious attitude will use this code as a “real” code. (I still believe in people, despite all the evidence to the contrary I get every day)

      As a fun bit though this taken some dedication.

  • henfredemars@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have a monitor that’s almost like this and it’s surprisingly nice. It feels like a two-monitor setup. Two actual monitors would probably have been cheaper, but I got mine from work, so it wasn’t a factor.

    The real advantage of having two actual monitors is being able to flip one vertically for reading code.

    EDIT: a word

    • Milx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everyone at my work who has this runs into issues whenever they need to share their screens, apologizing for low resolution or painstakingly resizing every window to mimic multiple screens anyway.

      • Ethan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just share one window at a time. I put the meeting on one half and the window I want to share on the other, which makes it 16:9 and works perfectly for what I need to share.

        • Milx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah people do that, until you’re sharing a code window and then need to see if it works on a browser and then your dev tools are popped out so you have three windows…or you don’t want to just have one meeting and one window visible, you also want slack or a window for googling or something similar…

          It’s all workaround-able, it’s just minor annoyance after minor annoyance lol.

    • VanillaGorilla@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I bought one after some months of remote work in 2020. Then when I started my new job they gave me another one (different manufacturer but exact same panel size). I needed to rearrange my desk a lot, but holy shit so much room for error messages!

      Yes, I’m a Java developer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • moosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is this a good thing I’m looking at or a bad thing? I don’t get it but then again, I’m not a programmer.

    • Eugene@waveform.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Java is a programming language that is notorious for being verbose, the joke is that you need a massively wide monitor to view it without the text being cut off

    • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The joke is Java is verbose. It takes many characters to accomplish simple routines. Depending on your view that could either be good or bad for reading the code later.

      • Anomandaris@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, but most of the lines in the screenshot break down to:

        object1.setA(object2.getX().getY().getZ().getI().getJ().getK().getE().getF(i).getG().toString())

        Aside from creating a method inside the class (which you should probably do here in Java too) how would another language do this in a cleaner way?

        • Blackthorn@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well I guess the point is that you shouldn’t need all these method calls to achieve simple goals. Most of those “getF” are calls to some SystemFactory to get a GenericObjectFactory and so on and so forth.

          • Anomandaris@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            This just tells me you don’t use Java. Factory classes are just used to create objects in a standardized way, but this code isn’t creating anything, it’s just getting nested fields from already instantiated objects.

            • Square Singer@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thos code is obviously nonsense to show the issue.

              But other languages would simplify stuff. For example, some languages call getters implicitly, so .getField() becomes .field. Same with list indexing, which could be done with operator overloading, so x.get(i) becomes x[i].

              In this situation that would be able to reduce the character count a fair bit.

              • biddy@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                The new convention in modern Java is to use .field() instead of .getField().

                What you’re complaining about isn’t Java, it’s object oriented programming, which Java basically forces on you. Verbosity is a flaw of OOP.

                • Square Singer@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Compare:

                  x.field[5]

                  with

                  x.getField().get(5)

                  Both are exactly the same level of OOP, but the Java version is roughly twice as long. Add operator overloading to the mix and it becomes much worse:

                  x.getField().get(5).multiply(6).add(3)

                  vs

                  x.field[5] * 6 + 3

                  All this has nothing to do with OOP, but with syntactic sugar that is applied.

  • nicotinell@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re dangerously close to the edge there bud, what’s your plan B when that starts to overflow huh?

    • sip@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      you forgot about AbstractSimpleShitLotsGoodLibrariesButWeDecidedToMakeOurOwn and AbstractSimpleShitLotsGoodLibrariesButWeDecidedToMakeOurOwnAbstractFactory

      • Von_Broheim@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that can get ugly but it’s still better than writing native queries because you know it’s gonna automatically translate to any db specific sql flavour.

        When they get a bit too long and ugly I either write default methods using specifications or I create a more concisely named default method that wraps the verbose monster.