Beyond that, I think that there is a limit to the complexity of problems that can be tackled without periods of extreme focus. Some problem domains are full of deep and irreducible complexity. It's probably true that we often mistake accidental complexity for irreducible complexity or fail to break down problems, but, and this may come off as arrogant, I find that it is generally people that have never had to deal with a problem domain with such irreducible complexities who think that we can solve all of our problems by breaking up work into smaller chunks. Sometimes you also have to deal with business requirements that effectively turn accidental complexity into irreducible complexity. Like, yes, technically things like regulatory compliance are accidental complexity but we also can't just simplify them away without facing serious repercussions. It's also much much easier to maintain context and state in problem domains you have worked in extensively for years, and you tend to be able to write more concise yet still complete descriptions of things within that problem domain. I suspect that has something to do with why the author only adopted this working approach later in life, in addition to the health problems he mentions. For instance, I find that I can pick up physics and math problems with minimal friction because I spent the better part of a decade studying those subjects intensely, but ask me to debug a SQL script (an area where I have minimal domain knowledge) and I will need probably 30 minutes before I can even think a useful thought about it. Most devs do not have the luxury of only working on problems they are domain experts on. Business requirements and capacity are fluid things.