If corps want me to use them, they can provide the hardware.

Seems fine to me?

I heard a saying recently that went along the lines of "engineering without constraints isn't engineering", and after reading "The Performance Inequality Gap"[0] and its follow-up series "Reckoning"[1], I'm convinced that software developers should use lower end devices so that they, too, feel the pain they're inflicting on others.

Running cheap hardware is fun and will make you want to improve your craft.

[0] - https://infrequently.org/series/performance-inequality/

[1] - https://infrequently.org/series/reckoning/

> I buy software tools that make me happy, better IDE's, licenses to tools I find useful, etc.

I don't use free software because it's cheap, but because it is free. Anyone trying to make a profit on the tools I depend on will eventually screw me over by capitalizing on that dependency or leave me in the lurch by abandoning the business. Tools maintained by and for the community which uses them are the only tools I can trust.

> Nobody gives a shit that you are some cheapskate that "gets by" with less.

Oh, but I certainly do - and, like most of us, I care far more about my own opinion of myself than I do about yours. It feels good to get by with less; it suits my aesthetic. Self-imposed constraints are almost as interesting as external ones, and discipline sharpens my skill.

> I buy software tools that make me happy, better IDE's, licenses to tools I find useful, etc.

So do I. But, for my use cases, having a top-of-the-line machine doesn't make me happier or a better dev. Why should I spend money where it isn't going to get me anything I value?

> You have something to prove?

No, I don't. Which is another reason why I'm not drawn to having the most powerful equipment possible.

> Fuck you. You don't respect yourself.

You seem unreasonably angry by the choices others make that don't even affect you.

"Software professionals" are precisely the people who should be forced to use the cheapest computers available 10 years ago!

Hell, we already had graphical OSes back in the 90s, when RAM was about the same size that is now L3 cache, swapping to hard drives the size of today's RAM. And of course each disk access was audible, so that you could tell when the computer was working hard. Imagine a little clicking noise on every cache miss today!

To a large extent, it's the absolutely moronic code banged out by "professionals", with its dependence on libraries upon libraries, JSON or XML encoded everything (because binary formats = scary! can't manipulate them with regular expressions!), that is responsible for modern software taking noticeable time to react to a simple key press, even when running on a CPU that can do dozens of 64-bit operations in the time it takes light to travel from the monitor to your eyes.

That said, I would agree that the article isn't very good, it contains a lot of conspiracy mongering and 4chan-like language.

Interesting points, all. But - you don't need to run an old machine to test software. If you are writing mobile apps, then your dev machine is irrelevant, get the best one you can. Writing web apps or Native apps?. Run a VM or other fine test options.

> Running cheap hardware is fun and will make you want to improve your craft

I see nothing fun about that, to be honest. We must agree to disagree here. As far as Improving my craft? Disagree strongly. Improving my craft means learning the technologies better, mastering new technology (AI, LLMS), and writing code. Has nothing to do with being on a crappy machine.

> Anyone trying to make a profit on the tools I depend on will eventually screw me over by capitalizing on that dependency or leave me in the lurch by abandoning the business

Sounds like someone has been burned before. I do agree that using JetBrains software (my personal favorite) does make you somewhat dependent.. But, if JB died tomorrow, I'd find the 'next best' thing.. I would adapt. The "possibility" that JB might die does not make me want to NOT improve my daily work life..

> Oh, but I certainly do - and, like most of us, I care far more about my own opinion of myself than I do about yours. It feels good to get by with less; it suits my aesthetic. Self-imposed constraints are almost as interesting as external ones, and discipline sharpens my skill.

This is the unreconcilable different part. It always surprises me that some people just "like" the challenge (or whatever) to get by with the lowest possible hardware.. but, it is obvious that some just love that. I just love having a nice machine and environment.

I get this is the same motivation that drives someone to get a really "nice" car, and others to drive an old beater cause "it gets you where you are going just as well as that Mercedes, Lexus, etc...

> You seem unreasonably angry by the choices others make that don't even affect you.

Yeah, that's on my. Sorry for the angst. I'm not really as angry as I sound. I apologize for the tone. We all have our preferences, I need to respect those of others as well.

I don't know when that was written, but the spirit of it holds. I don't do video rendering, compile massive programs, or play AAA games on high settings. I only run massive Electron apps for work, which supplies the computer to run it.

My personal daily driver is a Surface Go 3 with 8 GB RAM. I do have a dual-core desktop with GPU for a game (SC2) and videos. I do plug in an external display, keyboard, mouse.

> display quality and battery life have improved dramatically on new systems.

Which is valid. Nothing wrong with that.

But it only applies to laptops. I stopped using laptops about a decade ago (except at work, where that's what they issue) when I realized that I never actually took them anywhere so I didn't have to make the tradeoffs that they come with.