4 ms·

So one thing I don't see a lot of responses calling out, that I think is worth calling out, is what you see is how long the -code- took. You don't see how long

So one thing I don't see a lot of responses calling out, that I think is worth calling out, is what you see is how long the -code- took. You don't see how long the design took. You assume it started when the code did, but that may not actually be the case. These other developers may have had this idea in the back of their mind for months, chewing it over, thinking about how they'd approach something, doing research in their spare time, etc, before finally sitting down to code it. Same with feature extensions; they likely had a feature request, or the idea, and thought about it long before they coded it. So if you're comparing hobby projects, things that you started working on within a day or two of having the idea...well, maybe that's part of it, too.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Furthermore, there is no way of knowing whether the code you see is version 1 or version 10. Maybe they hammered away at local copies for months before finally figuring out the optimal design.
- harperlee 10y ago
  Well the OP explicitly mentions that he has been looking at the timeline between commits, so that point is moot. Even if some commits are missing, you can see the rate of change of the project - "invisible" offline commits would have a noticeable impact on the productivity of the "visible" one s in parallel.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>Well the OP explicitly mentions that he has been looking at the timeline between commits, so that point is moot. My point is that he can't see the commits on the developer's local repositories. You know, the ones they never upload to Github.