I'd say most developers are docking with an external screen, and there are very few external screens that are retina. So yeah, I'd say most developers are using a non-retina screen.
4k screens mostly run at 60hz, making them terrible for anything but watching movies. I don't like coding on a screen where I can see the refresh as I scroll.
I get my devs whatever they want for hardware, within reason. $500 or $1000 monitors? No questions asked. The price of hardware that will last years is nothing compared to the value of engineer happiness and productivity, especially when compares to how costly good engineers are in the USA and Canada.
So get your own monitor. I understand that many employees make the decision that they will not pay for equipment, to be true. However it's still a decision.
Hmm, I can't reply to Symbiote for some reason. But yes, 2560x1440 screens and other wide variants are really prefer by gamers or people who want high refresh rates. 4k is limited to 60Hz, unless you use DisplayPort 1.4 and some very new monitors.
There are quite a few users who prefer the wider format screens for a variety of reasons.
That's a silly question. More stuff fits in more pixels. Even if you have to compensate for readability by scaling fonts larger to make text the same size as it was on the lower dpi screen, the end result isn't actually equivalent to the lower dpi. It still works out that the higher dpi screen is on average more functional due to more things fitting on screen. Especially on dual/triple 27" external monitors on my desk. They are large and I am close to them, and a mere 1440 vertical pixels would be tolerable but crap when better is available. I usually have 4 to 10 terminal windows open where I want to see as much code and documentation and log output as possible, not a movie.
Because "retina" can imply pixel doubling, making it more like an extra-crisp 1920x1080. The typical 1440p screen is nice and big, and replacing it with such a setup at the same physical size would needlessly cut down on what you can fit. If you could trust non-integer scaling to work properly then 4K would resoundingly beat 1440, but that's a pipe dream right now.
You can get the best of both with a 5K-6K screen, but that's currently a very expensive price point not on most people's radar.
These are cheap 27" screens though, which are not ideal for macOS, which is optimized for running at either 100% or 200% zoom. It's a shame that 4K screens at 24" and 5K screens at 27" are so hard to find. Apple uses these panels in their iMac line, but refuses to sell them as standalone displays.
