> we can't pretend that the amount of code that a developer writes is devoid of any meaning
The scalar of «amount of code that a developer writes» is «devoid of any meaning» outside frameworks of streamlining of such code (which would themselves not be a good idea, as you would in fact actually have classes of code, to be judged differently). The submitted specifies it was a case of a simple scalar field in a form.
Your argument is of course valid, but your conclusion disregards it. Outside a defined framework of quality adherence, the «amount of code» is «a random number».
The interesting part is all in the productivity (bulk of quality). That is the area that should be investigated - in both discussion and assessment.
And clearly, "amount of code produced" is a bad incentive, against quality. Aaaalways take care and beware of incentives.
The scalar of «amount of code that a developer writes» is «devoid of any meaning» outside frameworks of streamlining of such code (which would themselves not be a good idea, as you would in fact actually have classes of code, to be judged differently). The submitted specifies it was a case of a simple scalar field in a form.
Your argument is of course valid, but your conclusion disregards it. Outside a defined framework of quality adherence, the «amount of code» is «a random number».
The interesting part is all in the productivity (bulk of quality). That is the area that should be investigated - in both discussion and assessment.
And clearly, "amount of code produced" is a bad incentive, against quality. Aaaalways take care and beware of incentives.