Are 10-11 Hour Programming Days Feasible?

Bye-bye! by vrmlguy · 2011-01-13 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

'Nuff said!

--
Nothing for 6-digit uids?

Re:Bye-bye! by Evets · 2011-01-13 11:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well rested and happy people are far more productive than tired and unhappy people. A successful focus would be on motivation and efficiency, not on length of workday.
Re:Bye-bye! by DragonWriter · 2011-01-13 12:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well rested and happy people are far more productive than tired and unhappy people.

This is certainly true if you measure productivity in value of output per unit of time worked. OTOH, if you have exempt employees, your labor costs don't scale with hours worked, and you may, within a certain range, get more output per unit of labor cost by expanding hours past the point where that would be beneficial in a system of hourly wages.
On the third(?!) hand, there is going to be a point at which that becomes counterproductive, even in the short-term, and in the long-term it probably isn't good for morale and retention.

A successful focus would be on motivation and efficiency, not on length of workday.
But a boss can't just declare motivation and efficiency, whereas a boss can just declare longer workdays. "Motivation and efficiency" require the boss to do work...
Re:Bye-bye! by Culture20 · 2011-01-13 12:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's also the "waste 2-3 hours more" option.
There's only so much tiddly-winks one can play at work before you realize you'd rather play tiddly-winks with your non-work friends with your own free time.
Re:Bye-bye! by c6gunner · 2011-01-13 13:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Boss is asking his opinion, ergo boss apparently cares enough to not just slam people over the head with his authority-stick. I could think of far worse people to work for. OP should be explaining to him the downsides of the plan, and perhaps suggesting better ways of achieving the desired goal - not pulling the pin and fucking off at the high-port.
Re:Bye-bye! by kinabrew · 2011-01-13 14:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

What *will* happen is that those who can get better jobs(the best workers) will, and the people who will be left will be the worst and least-qualified workers.
If the management are thinking up brilliant ideas like this, it would be a good idea to get your résumé to as many other potential employers as possible.
Re:Bye-bye! by justin12345 · 2011-01-13 14:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

That was my exact thought as well. Most companies fail. In this guy's case they are just salaried employees without stock, they don't even have a vested interest in the company succeeding. Asking programmers (or anyone for that matter) to work 11 hours a day just to keep their job is just a good way to get rid of your employees.

Also, as far as actual productivity goes: in my experience 6 hours of actual work is pushing it for a programmer. Sure they show up for a full day, but after a certain point the brain burns out and they're posting on slashdot instead of coding, or they are making a lot of mistakes.

There is a reason that a lot of start ups spent a lot of money on game rooms and making their employees happy and comfortable. I'd rather have 4 good hours of a programmer at his absolute best then 8 hours of mediocrity.

--
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Re:Bye-bye! by dr2chase · 2011-01-13 14:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

It depends upon how you count your 10 hours. I worked for quite some time in a startup (distributed, in multiple homes), that ultimately failed, and astonishingly we all remained friends (we started friends). I looked at some logs of when we did commits and when we exchanged emails, and we worked ridiculous hours, for a long time, and generated code at a sustained rate (years) of something like 100 lines per day per person, not too picky about definition of "line", not too buggy (it was a brand-X JVM. We could run Swing apps. We could run Websphere.), including overhead for a fair amount of the crap that goes with running a business. This also included learning how to do stuff that was completely new to us, like emulating Sparc FP on an Intel, or translating gdtoa (FP-to-string) from C to Java, and debugging it.
However, we were working at home, and I know that those "work hours" had holes in them, sometimes lots of holes in them. If I got stuck on a problem, I would do laundry, wash dishes, rake the yard, anything else that needed doing, and usually a solution would occur to me while I was doing something else. I think if I had been in an office, "forced" (by social pressure, if nothing else) to "look productive" for those hours, there is no way I could have done it.
And yes, we all got non-trivial amounts of stock. Those of us who were getting paid a salary, obviously got less.
Re:Bye-bye! by syousef · 2011-01-13 15:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Boss is asking his opinion, ergo boss apparently cares enough to not just slam people over the head with his authority-stick. I could think of far worse people to work for. OP should be explaining to him the downsides of the plan, and perhaps suggesting better ways of achieving the desired goal - not pulling the pin and fucking off at the high-port.
No, the boss is a manager of people but does not understand that working them into the ground for a sustained period isn't going to save the company. He is either desperate or stupid or both. In any case a manager of software developers that does not know the answer to this question is an amateur at best and has no business running a company.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Bye-bye! by c6gunner · 2011-01-13 15:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'll take an amateur who's willing to learn over a "professional" who thinks he's infallible, any day.
Re:Bye-bye! by byte+twine · 2011-01-13 17:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, and willingly gave his workers health benefits so he could sell more ambulances...

Oh, right, he did none of those things. You were born to a 40 hour work week because generations of workers fought for it. They fought for Sunday off, they fought for the 10-hour workday, and they fought for the 40 hour work week. Thank the workers who organized and fought in unions and gained this victory. Celebrate it and remember the struggle on May Day.
Re:Bye-bye! by Kjella · 2011-01-13 21:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, the boss is a manager of people but does not understand that working them into the ground for a sustained period isn't going to save the company. He is either desperate or stupid or both.
Of course he's desperate. His company is tanking, and he's got a helluva lot more invested in it than the employees who have been paid for time worked. Calling it quits, folding the company and taking that loss is the very, very last option - driving his employees into the ground is actually a step up on that list, if it works. If you can't survive in the here and now, nothing else matters - no matter how much you crash your long term chances, burn your bridges with employees - you're not going to be around to see it. Long term you pray that the market will turn and jump on your product and that people can be replaced. Just the way it's suggested makes me think they're on the last page of options already, I mean everybody must understand being asked to pay much much more for the same pay is the same as cutting your hourly salary by a lot.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Bye-bye! by Simon+Brooke · 2011-01-13 22:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I worked for a company once that had a strict rule of 7.5 hours per day 5 days a week. If you needed to work extra to finish something you had to get clearance from the director of development.
Their reasoning was that after 7.5 hours per day you introduce much more errors and that will increase testing and bug fixing time and ultimately the company product.
With that reasoning in mind..... 10-11 hour days will likely f-ck up any programs developed pretty badly :-)
OK, one size does not fit all. Some people work well for longer than others. Furthermore, things a person can do for short periods - a few weeks, perhaps - are not necessarily things the same person can sustain over the long haul. And if you push people too hard, not only do error rates go up short term, but ultimately they burn out and become unable to work effectively at all (where 'ultimately' can mean a year - or less).
I've produced some of my best code working sixteen hour days. But I've also burned out working sixteen hour days for too long. In my opinion you need to treat your workforce as individuals each of whom will have a different most effective working pattern - and recognise that for any given individual their most efficient working pattern will vary over time. To get an effective workforce, someone in the team needs to be monitoring how individual team members' performance is changing over time, and seeking to understand why. And then, helping them to modify their working practice to achieve the best effectiveness they can.
But in my opinion if you have someone who's basically a good, creative programmer, and they're having an off period, perhaps because of domestic problems, a good team manager will allow that person to 'slack' for a period - work less, or be assigned less difficult or more interesting work - in the expectation that when they get back to full strength they will be a more committed and more loyal team member.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.

No thanks... by Frosty+Piss · 2011-01-13 11:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

My current boss asked me what I thought of asking all employees to work 10-11 hour days until the company is profitable. ... None of the employees have ownership/stock and all are salary...

Hahha ha ha ha haaaaaha ahaaa... Chortle... Yes. Well.

Please tell me where you work so I can avoid having anything to do with you folks...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:No thanks... by Chapter80 · 2011-01-14 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

It seems I have a different opinion than all the other posts. Maybe my (PHB) pointy hair is affecting my thinking.
Sounds like the boss is asking for about 30% more hours. Would you like it better if the boss announced a 30% layoff (in these tough times)? Or maybe he might be demanding more hours, with the expectation that he'll have some attrition. This isn't a bad strategy for him, if all the employees are approximately "worth what they are paid", but a horrible strategy if he has some employees who are a bargain, and others who are overpaid for their contribution. He might want to swiftly eliminate any under-contributors.
There are several factors that you should consider when getting this request from your boss. They are:
What are the company's prospects?
What are your personal prospects inside the company? (Are you well respected?)
What are your personal prospects outside the company? (How's the job market?)
How much do you like the job?
What leverage do you have in this situation?
Let's take an extreme example as an illustration. Say you are paid $150K, the people at the company are great, the boss is highly ethical and has a good mind for business, and there is a downturn in business, obviously temporary, because your largest customers went bankrupt. The job market is bad in your part of the world (and so getting a 75K job might take a couple of years of job hunting), The company has treated you more than fairly over the year (even though you have not received ownership, they've paid you well). In this case, if the boss asks for more hours, you'd be a fool not to go along with it. Probably the best thing you can do is to try to negotiate a short duration of the long hours - say a month or two - or request an agreement that back pay will be provided when things turn around. But if you can't negotiate it, you suck it up, and do the hours. Or, as an alternative (if you are inclined), you ask if you can take a lesser salary to simply work 8 hour days.
More likely though, this company has never been profitable, you are burning through the investment dollars (or you are costing the ownership money every month, and perhaps the boss is the owner). He might be looking at a situation where he is "working for free" or even at a loss, simply to pay the employees.
I have been both an employee and a boss/owner in those situations. It's tough. It's very stressful to be the boss/owner, who works hard every day, and at the end of the month, instead of getting a paycheck, he has to write a check ("pay to work here" sucks for a boss!). Let me tell you, it sucks. And it really sucks if when you hear your employees doing normal office social interaction (chit-chat) - and doing everything you can to resist yelling "GET BACK TO WORK".
I found that the best way to handle this as a boss is to think of the business as an engineering problem. And make it a shared problem. Instead of doing something haphazard, like asking people to work 10-11 hour days, you formulate a plan, and make it a shared plan. This is more of advice for your boss, not for you, but perhaps you can direct him to it.
This approach requires a lot of honesty of the boss, and a trust in the maturity of the workforce. But I have seen it work MANY times. (get Jack Stack's books (1, 2, 3) to read about one of the more high profile cases of this working, with factory workers!)
First, start out with the statement of the problem. The boss has to lay it all out there. And he has to approach this like a problem-solving exercise, not a threat.
Gather the team together,

Don't Say Anything by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-13 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Start your job hunt now.

they suck and you will get burned out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-13 11:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

They suck and you will get burned out.

You will also write shitty code, which will cost more to maintain.

Market's good, bail asap.

Re:they suck and you will get burned out by MozeeToby · 2011-01-13 11:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Basically, I would say anything over 50 hours per week is a waste. More than that and you will get less done (through mistakes, extra breaks, loss of morale, and employees just plain leaving) than you would if you had stopped at 50. Maybe you could do a single week at more than that and get a bit more done, but I find it unlikely.
And even 50 hours per week is probably not sustainable for anything approaching long term, I've always found that after 3-4 weeks I'm totally burned out and the work starts to suffer. That's if people don't run for the hills the minute the words "mandatory, unpaid overtime" are out of the boss's mouth.
If I had to guess at a sustainable number, I'd probably pick 45. It's only 1 extra hour per day, most people will grumble about it but not start looking for another job. Note: people aren't going to be happy about it, and even at 'only' nine hour work days you better be ready to spend some money to keep morale up. Things like free meals and gift cards for exceptional work can go a long way towards making people feel like you actually appreciate the extra effort, but are no replacement for overtime pay.

More work deserves more compensation by bobdotorg · 2011-01-13 11:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Give him three options:

More pay
Ownership stake
Look for your replacement

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.

Financial incentives aren't always salary by ezratrumpet · 2011-01-13 11:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

People must be paid. Stock options are a form of payment. But people don't work for free.

Feasible? Sure! by fzimper · 2011-01-13 11:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Effective? Hardly!

too vague of a timeline by anjilslaire · 2011-01-13 11:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

"until the company is profitable" is way too vague to work like that.

--
Need more useless stuff to read on teh internetz?

Tell him to issue stock. by dbc · 2011-01-13 11:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously. You hire people to work at a start up, with start up risks, with start up health plans, and expect them to work start up hours without any ownership? To anybody worth hiring, that doesn't even pass the giggle test. Do *you* have stock? if not, why do you work there?

Re:Tell him to issue stock. by Peach+Rings · 2011-01-13 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hey guys our company is failing can I convince you to work for a stake in our company

Short answer ... by Bake · 2011-01-13 11:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

No.

Long answer: Heck no.

Tell him you quit by spiffmastercow · 2011-01-13 11:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd say the next time you talk about this should be the day you find a new job. Tell him you quit, and tell him why.

Explain the math by mdf356 · 2011-01-13 11:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's very simple. You are paid to think. The quality of your thoughts after 8 hours working in a day is not nearly as good as in the first few hours. Except for a short stint, the quality of thinking after 10 hours is so poor that you will spend more time cleaning up the messes you made when tired than you saved by working longer.

--
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.

Yes they are feasible. by Maxo-Texas · 2011-01-13 11:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

My company has been working 12 hour days for 18 months. I don't think they are feasible in a normal economy (people would leave). I don't think they are feasible for too much longer (now having to bring in outside resources for the first time-- people are fully loaded).

However, they are providing us high quality lunch and dinner at our desks. The crew is mostly senior resources (35 to 50 years old) with 12+ years experience). They did this back in 1995-2000 and had a hard time hiring anyone for several years.

The quality is there in my opinion. SO mostly we are just giving up personal lives. I do not watch much TV any more. Every 4 or 5 weeks we get a week or two of 10 hour days as a break. Dinner is not provided those days.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

Re:Of course... by rwven · 2011-01-13 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't care what you were working on...no job is worth that.

See! by TooMuchToDo · 2011-01-13 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is why fuckedcompany.com should be resurrected. Its services are still in need it appears.

To poster: As having been an employee in salary-only positions, salary+equity positions, and now a business owner with a small (6) group of employees, let me provide you advice from my 11 years of IT experience: Run as fast as you can. No employer should ever be asking you to work with no equity and without additional compensation for 60+ hours a week.

Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-13 11:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't want ownership stake in a non-profitable company that has to make its employees work absurd hours to become profitable.

Ask for a cut of the profits .... by Wrath0fb0b · 2011-01-13 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's legitimate reasons why employees at a startup would need to put in tons of hours until things get up to speed. The flipside is that the potential for a large payday is significantly greater for the startup employer than for an established firm.

It seems therefore logical that the proper arrangement is to offer the employees a chunk of the profit in exchange for getting the push to release done on-time and with all the features. If your employer doesn't want to pay you like a startup, he has no right to ask for startup-esque sacrifices. Conversely, if the employees are not willing to push hard for release in exchange for such a bonus, they should find employment at a more well-established firm.

Well, by Black+Parrot · 2011-01-13 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

What should I say to him when we talk about this again?

Tell him he's as clueless as he is greedy.

Or just refer him to this post, and I'll tell him for you.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Hours by Andy+Smith · 2011-01-13 11:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Six months ago I began working solo on a commercial programming project. I've been working 16-18 hours each day, most days, because that's what I feel is required to bring the project to market in a reasonable time. It would be great if I had a team of people and we could all work 8-hour-days, but I don't, so long hours are required.

It sounds like your boss is in a similar situation. He wants to market a product of X size, requiring Y amount of work, in Z time. What he's asking you is: Are you, and the rest of the staff, the right people for this project? Are you willing to do Y amount of work in Z time?

The tone of your question to slashdot is, I think: How do I tell my boss that this is an unreasonable request, while still keeping my job? In other words: How do I dictate the terms of my employment?

Really the question should be to yourself, and it should be exactly the same question that your boss is asking you: Are you the right person for this job?

It's perfectly acceptable for you to decide that you aren't the right person. Maybe all of the other staff are the wrong people too. But the job is what it is. I don't bat an eyelid to working a 12-hour day, but maybe that isn't right for you, and that's fine.

Good luck, anyway. I hope the situation can be resolved in a way that works for everyone.

(Note: my answer would be very different if your boss was asking you to do more work for the same money, but as you didn't say anything about that I assume that isn't the case.)

Re:Of course... by HungryHobo · 2011-01-13 11:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

The game industry is horrible because it's one of those jobs kids grow up wanting.

It's like being an actor or actress.Great for a handful at the top but everyone else works terrible hours for shit pay trying to get their break which never comes.

It doesn't matter how many young coders they burn out or treat like shit there's always 20 more behind them to take their place.

If you want decent pay and conditions find a job which nobody wants.... or even better one which nobody even realizes exists.

Best single way to get new customers? by hey! · 2011-01-13 11:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure. The problem is that multiple proven, highly effective ways of losing customers are so closely related to quick and cheesy ways of adding new features. I'll name a few:

* Adding bugs.
* Adding complexity.
* Overloading support.
* Slowing maintenance.
* Making just about everything more expensive, including features customers will decide they need in the future.

I could go on and on, but this is enough to show that going on a new feature spree isn't a no-brainer.

Now from a marketing perspective, who does this better than anyone else? Apple. For many years Apple earned the sneers of tech heads everywhere by keeping its products on a strict feature budget. They *never* introduce a product that does everything you could easily imagine it doing. Instead they:

(a) do a really nice job on the features they deliver and

(b) regularly release a *small* number of new features, small enough they can really hit the marketing ball out of the park when they explain to customers why they absolutely *have* to chuck their old iPod and buy a new one.

The second point is really the key. Apple doesn't get ahead of themselves, they never do it all in one go. Sometimes the new features are really quite impressive, other times they're things Apple could easily have done earlier, but they've timed to nudge the herd down the upgrade track.

The first gen Touch didn't have a built in speaker. That's not a deal breaker, because the first gen was so cool. Then Apple introduced the second gen, which really was only a tiny bit spiffier, but it *did* have a speaker. Then every time a happy 1st gen owner could have used that feature, he'd be thinking, "Gee I love my 1st gen, but I'd be just a *little* bit happier if I bought a 2nd gen." This leaves *everyone* happy. The owner now has his spiffy new iPod with speaker, and Apple has sold two nearly identical devices to a customer for much less than twice the cost.

The only people who are unhappy are cranks who insist on believing Apple does features this way because it's too stupid to come up with new features or see their value to the customer. It's *because* they see the value of new features that they dole them out this way, so they get the greatest possible mileage out of them.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

There are better ways to raise productivity by DeathSquid · 2011-01-13 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

How many people can really work 10-11 hours a day solidly, every day, and produce high quality code?

If you really want to raise productivity, how about:
* get rid of all unnecessary meetings (those that do not directly move the project forward)
* get rid of all unnecessary paperwork (including bureaucratic bullshit like timesheets)
* hire dedicated sales support rather than distracting core engineers
* give engineers a door to close and respect it
* encourage working off-site and/or out-of-hours when deep concentration is required
* encourage engineers to work at time of peak efficiency (don't make a night person work early, etc.)
* establish a culture of no working on weekends

Good engineering management like this can raise productivity 50-100%.

"I don't think it means what he thinks it means." by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-01-13 12:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did he also read the stuff Spolsky said about paying fantastic above-industry-standard salaries and having a fantastic office with excellent workspace and expensive, comfortable chairs, and catered staff lunches daily? Oh, and a lounge with a theater system and a ridiculously expensive coffee machine that costs more than the GDP of some countries?

How about the stuff Spolsky says about retaining old customers by squashing bugs and not just adding new features specifically so you can run around claiming you have a new shiny, even though it's useless and buggy?

Tell your boss to stop cherrypicking from what Spolsky says when he has no idea what his actual management philosophy is.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."

Re:Do this: by BluBrick · 2011-01-13 13:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Better yet, offer him four twenty dollar notes and ask him if he will give you a hundred dollar note for them. If he says yes, tell him you won't work for someone that doesn't understand money - and leave. If he says no, ask him why he expects you to make the equivalent deal for him - and leave.

--
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!

I did the 80 hour work week by Aronacus · 2011-01-13 14:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I used to work as a Field Service Computer Technician for a Large Corporation. We had Mandatory unpaid overtime and a 60-80 hour week was the norm. I was 23 when I started that job and when I left at 27 I was a dead man. High Blood Pressure, Borderline Diabetes, High Cholesterol. My Doctor had me on a stack of drugs just to keep me going and warned me if I kept this up I'd be dead in 5-10 years. I worked and worked and one day my boss pulled me aside and said "you can't take that vacation! You are too important to your Territory. I was shocked. He told me I'd lose my job if I took the Vacation. Long Story short I took my vacation. I posted my Resume and I got out of there. I work for a new company where we work 35 hour weeks. get paid lots more money and I sit at a Desk most of the day. Here's the best part. Of all the medication I was on about 7 prescriptions I now only take 1. With all the Free time I was able to get Married and have a good life. I now know about the Dangers involved in pulling 60-80 hour weeks. Don't be stupid. No jobs worth the bull shit.

Re:You need to change your handle to... by Thing+1 · 2011-01-13 14:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's finished in two more months.

No it isn't.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

It might help them meet some short-term goals... by Just+Brew+It! · 2011-01-13 15:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

But unless there's a reward for those developers at the end of that tunnel, they should expect people to start jumping ship when the job market improves. Furthermore, developers who are being pressured to put in overtime to implement new features are not going to create the cleanest (or best documented) code; so when those developers leave, the company is going to have a maintenance mess on their hands.

Charity by lexcyber · 2011-01-13 17:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I answer this as I answer anyone asking for this kind of work conditions.

If you want charity, go to a charity organization. Don't work for free, end of story.

I have something to sell (my time) employer need something (my time) and he or her should pay for it.

--
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -

Bad idea by Dragoness+Eclectic · 2011-01-14 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's not the worst idea in the history of bad ideas, but it's pretty bad. Beyond somewhere between 4-6 hours of productive mental work per day, the brain gets tired and your attention and focus goes to hell. Most of us fill out the rest of the day with non-demanding stuff like reading e-mail, gossiping with our coworkers, surfing the Internet, doing paperwork, etc. Push people to work 10+ hours a day and I predict that (a) your best people will suddenly find a job somewhere else, and (b) those remaining will actually slow the project down because of extra bugs and other lost productivity due to mistakes. Or (c), you will ship a bug-riddled, barely-working mess more or less on schedule, like a certain game company is notorious for doing. And lets not forget (d) disgruntled, overworked programmer sells your IP to his new employer or creatively re-arranges your development servers.

Personally, I wish we'd move to either 6-hour work days or a 4 day work-week. I'd rather have the extra day off than fake working for about 10 hours of the week (that 2 hours of the day where I can't concentrate on productive work any more and do mindless crap).

--
---dragoness

Slashdot Mirror

Are 10-11 Hour Programming Days Feasible?

44 of 997 comments (clear)