> we would need to: Determine how to measure real-world productivity [1] I submit to you that we would be having the same arguments no matter what study was do

> we would need to: Determine how to measure real-world productivity [1] I submit to you that we would be having the same arguments no matter what study was done, because it could always be argued that whatever small-scale thing would be measured, and whatever metric was used, doesn't reflect the full complexity of reality. We all know that some programmers are better than others. But actually quantifying that would not be in anyone's interests. For programmers, it would mean hard metrics to rate our performance, and people would be paid differently based on these metrics. "Bad" programmers, as defined by this hypothetical metric, would lose money and career opportunities. "Good" programmers would earn the wrath and envy of their colleagues. From a manager's perspective, hard metrics would encourage gaming the system and would generally not encourage team play. So it is better off where it is. People who write code slowly can argue that they are really more productive because they take time for testing and collaboration and making documentation and making things legible, and that people who write code quickly are making unmaintainable messes. And people who write quickly have a prima facie case.