|
I live in a city. Work in a city. Regardless of being home or at office I always (well 96% always) go out, walk, eat, come back.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I've worked from home all this century. I used to take a brief break and make toasted sandwiches, or make some soup, or a salad. Lunch was also the opportunity to pop down to the station to pick up a paper, put the washing out, groom the cats and other stuff. I aimed to take lunch around 1pm but it was totally dependent on what I was doing - if I was "in the zone" it might get forgotten about until gone 3pm.
These days, 90% retired, I have a similar routine. Except that now I graze all day, and stop (if I remember) to do a bit of work.   ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
I always take lunch (sandwich or whatever) and watch whatever show I'm binging. Its like a mental flush and lets me come back fresh.
Computers are like air conditioners. They don't work right when you have windows open.
|
|
|
|
|
Taking later lunch 1:30/2 PM but work through lunch then use "lunch" time to nap in car or now bed since remote. Taking actual 12 PM lunch kills productivity for rest of day.
|
|
|
|
|
Lunch is more than food download; a time to reset. So, walk away. May not eat but I will be away
from the desk/phone/monitor. Working from home maybe a fifteen minute nap, pet the cat, sit outside
for a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Leftovers. My wife is an outstanding cook so I usually have really good leftovers. During the panicademic I would clean the kitchen at lunch, freeing up my time in the evenings.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes, I do one or the other as a work-from-home as well. There are times when there is a deadline for a project or I am just writing a blog or article and don't want to stop what I am doing. Other times, I make sure to go eat lunch with my little ones and my husband. It's a hard balance, I sometimes have to force myself to stop and walk away, eat like a real human and not zombie-stare work down and try to eat lunch at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
I hungry I eat. I pack my lunches when I go to the office. I try to include a light snack. A small yet decent main meal for later and some fruit and veggies.
Yesterday was a homemade(leftover) slice of veggy pizza,
Today is rice
Tomorrow the office orders food from chick-fil-a. Which is fun and unhealthy like no other.
If I am at home (50%) of the time. I have whatever left over is available and probably eat too much. Planning my lunchs makes me slightly healthier
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
I always go out to lunch, it's my big meal of the day. I like just being able to relax my focus for awhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varies, some days a cous cous or rice dish at my desk, others chicken or tuna and salad way from my desk, but always make time to walk the dog at lunchtime - it gets me away from the screen and enforces a break.
|
|
|
|
|
I find it useful mentally to get out of the office for lunch. Unfortunately, being a single man, I don't eat the best and my belly would tell you it's not the greatest.
|
|
|
|
|
seriously? prepare a fancy meal?
My wife and I are foodies, so we cook. There are always leftovers. But you can surely whip something up for lunch. Breaks your thoughts away from code.
That said, CV19 really elephanted with my reality and still does. I was a cubicle dweller before and now I work from home. It's weird.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with doing stuff you like is that you naturally gravitate towards eating while doing said stuff you like. It is a problem because that's kinda sh*tty from the health perspective, both metabolic & mental so I force myself to get away from the home office desk for lunch.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm watching The Software Architecture Hour with Neal Ford with Guest Martin Fowler[^] (on O'Reilly).
Fowler said a couple of very interesting things about abstraction that get to the root of OOP.
Martin Fowler
"...the key to controlling complexity in software is the ability to build abstractions for your particular circumstance and then be able to evolve those abstractions and use those abstractions to write & compose into better solutions."
He then said,
Fowler on Spreadsheets... "one of the most successful programming environment...the most widely used programming environments that is out there is spreadsheets. For relatively simple tasks they can be very effective. But again, this inability to create your own abstractions... The fact that you all the time have to work at the level of rows & columns does end up getting in the way."
Often, people who write one-off solutions or who see the solution too simplistically (from a higher level, like a manager) think you are wasting time Engineering or Designing a solution that works to solve a Class of Problems.
Martin Fowler: "If you can't build your own abstractions, you're not going to be able to tackle anything of serious complexity."
|
|
|
|
|
And Marc says, abstractions are great, but you need concrete code to get things done.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: you need concrete code to get things done.
I agree, but you know the Abstractions Fowler is talking about are code too, right?
I also understand that there are times that "Architects" create "Class Hierarchies" which offer little to no benefit, but being able to interact with higher level things is almost always better than fussing over pedantic details every time.
Of course, the counterpoint to that is, "Someone, somewhere has to write the pedantic code that parses each byte or whatever." But that should be properly stuck behind an interface (notice small i) and used as a black box to save time.
It's just if you get stuck thinking at the level of bytes then you can never get enough air to be able to see the whole picture.
Of course, again, if you're doing embedded type of work this will all sound ridiculous again.
But creating larger solutions based upon step-by-step details will probably preclude you from ever building something "bigger".
Lots of trade-offs. But when it comes to Business-Logic (IT World - versus aforementioned embedded) Abstractions provide a strong ability to get large projects done.
I myself am back & forth on it, because I do quite a bit of embedded, backend, detailed algos and then also want to just crank out a usable End-User Product.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but still...
"
When you go too far up, abstraction-wise, you run out of oxygen. Sometimes smart thinkers just don’t know when to stop, and they create these absurd, all-encompassing, high-level pictures of the universe that are all good and fine, but don’t actually mean anything at all. These are the people I call Architecture Astronauts.
" -- Don’t Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You – Joel on Software[^]
If'n I recall correctly, several years ago there was a member whose signature included an admonition against making something generic before you have seen at least three examples to go from.
Someone who can't think in abstractions will not succeed, nor will someone who thinks only in abstractions.
It's about balance.
|
|
|
|
|
A round-about way of saying you need to "analyze; then design". He could have just as well said "model" instead of abstraction and more people would have understood what he was talking about.
ERD diagrams, UML diagrams, etc. are all "models" / abstractions to help create the "final" abstraction (of some process) in code.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
|
My cat frequently has whisker fatigue. 
|
|
|
|
|
A great feast confined the base price. (9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig,
It's misspelled but you chose the correct answer.
Pentecost
A great feast confined the base price. (9)
A great feast = definition
confined = Pent
the base = e
price = cost
pent
E
cost
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the correction - I figured "cost" was "base price" -- the amount paid by the retailer for a product, which they then raise by some amount to make a profit. I didn't know what the "e" was (or "a" in my case  ).
Best wishes from chilly Minnesota! - Craig
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
