[csb6]

> I would argue that what good software developers do is remove problems. The opposite, in fact, of production

But something is being produced - it is version 2.0 of the software. This is an artifact that is then shipped to users or deployed to a server. Peter’s solution fixed the issue and did not (seemingly) create further maintenance burden, which would have taken attention away from other tasks, i.e. reduced future productivity.

I agree that metrics for programmer productivity are often useless (e.g. using lines of code is a bad idea for obvious reasons), but it seems silly to claim that the entire concept of productivity does not apply to the production of software.

[foobiekr]

Silly and convenient. No one takes the claim that you can’t measure software productivity seriously and everyone simultaneously agrees that simple scalar metrics often fail to show the big picture in any and all disciplines.

The rest is just usual software guy hubris and lack of awareness of the discipline.

[musicale]

> No one takes the claim that you can’t measure software productivity seriously

At least three people do, and they are mentioned in the article: the author, his colleague, and Martin Fowler.

I suspect that software productivity (like the productivity of scientists, artists, composers, etc.) on any non-trivial project may be measurable on a scale of years, but not necessarily months or calendar quarters. A larger issue is that productivity is often due to external factors as much as it is to individual effort, and overnight success is often the result of extended periods of limited progress or even repeated failure.