> I believe written communication is far more efficient.

Categorically wrong. Two examples:

1) Years ago I was moving out of a shared house and looking for someone to move into my room. One person in particular would only communicate via email about coming to view the room. Consequently days elapsed before we'd got a final arrangement that could have been sorted out with a 10 minute phone call, despite having my number, and me having theirs. Then, when I took half a day off to wait in for this person to visit, they missed the appointment. When I checked my email it turned out they'd emailed me a few minutes before they were due to turn up to tell me they weren't going to make it. Again, despite having my phone number. Already irritated by their behaviour this obviously left me fuming.

2) Just the past few days I've been dealing with an "urgent" support incident where the two people involved have been exchanging emails for three days: a conversation that could be easily accelerated with a call.

In both these cases direct synchronous communication is the key: this might be face to face or on the phone, or a video call, but in no way is written communication more efficient.

> Categorically wrong

I disagree. Yesterday I was trying to organise a visit to a luthier for a guitar repair. He told me to phone him, so I phoned, he didn't answer. I left a voicemail, and he phoned me back 15 minutes later, I missed him. On the third attempt, we spoke. I explained what I had written in the email, and he told me that I should call in with the guitar. Overall, it took ~20 minutes of back and forth to resolve an issue that could have been answered in the reply where he told me to phone him.

If you phone me, you are likely to call me at an inconvenient time and interrupt what I'm doing. If you send me an email, and I'm free, I'll respond immediately. If I'm in the middle of something, I'll respond when I'm finished what I'm doing.

I saw someone crash their car therefore driving is an inefficient method of transport.

Look, I work alone and find some situations best described by writing down long and comprehensive emails - but if you're going to accuse face-to-face contact as being 'caveman talk' I'm sorry but I'm going to wonder if your empathic or social intelligence is somehow dialled down.

My life experience tells me that there are vast tracts of productivity that are served very well by direct collaboration with other humans.

> accuse face-to-face contact as being 'caveman talk'

I said it's caveman technology, which is surely indisputable. In my experience it's thoroughly inefficient for discussing technical matters. That's probably why not much technology was developed before writing.

Is the insinuation not the same? It comes across as somewhat derisory, whether intended or not.

What amuses me about this exchange here is how even in 'collaborating' through writing, at least four individuals aren't able to meaningfully describe what they really intend. The internet, writ black and white, polarises and makes nuance absolute and all hope of sense is lost! :)

For what it's worth, I do appreciate where you're coming from - there's no forelorn dread I feel more than the suggestion of a completely superfluous face to face meeting... .

- ed

Also, I have to repeatedly remind friends and family, as well as business contacts, that the best and most assured way to get in contact with me is to send me an email. It has been for nearly 20 years now. Always!

Writing is great for one-way communication. If you actually mean to collaborate, if you don't know what you don't know and what to ask the other person, in-person communication is way more efficient.

And it turns out if you're solving nontrivial problems as a software team, you're talking is more of the collaborative kind than the one-way-information-distributing kind.