[jlarocco]

There's enough good data backing up that conclusion that there's no point using crappy data like in the article.

Nobody will argue C is more expressive than Python, but the data in the article doesn't support it. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's okay to support it with shoddy data.

LOC per commit isn't a proxy measurement of the expressiveness of a language. The entire premise of the article is flawed.

[rohern]

The data in the article based on LOC seems to match very closely conclusions based on other data. I do not know that we get to throw out this measure just 'cuz. This is proof of nothing, but no one is offering proof that we should ditch this measurement.

[jlarocco]

I'd almost bet the author started with the conclusion and went searching for more data to back it up, so it's not a surprise to me that his data backs up his conclusion.

And nobody is offering proof that this measurement is meaningful, so it should be ditched.

[dsberkholz]

I started with a hypothesis that LOC/commit might be an interesting way to compare the productivity of languages, and I frankly had no clue whether it would produce anything useful or interpretable at all. When it did, I figured it was cool enough to write it up, although it's definitely fairly noisy data.