> Unfortunately, software productivity is never going to be measurable. Therefore we will never ever have a reliable metric to even prove to ourselves that we a

> Unfortunately, software productivity is never going to be measurable. Therefore we will never ever have a reliable metric to even prove to ourselves that we are more or less productive than our coworkers, much less worth hiring. This fact should sober our prideful arrogance about hiring and introduce some humility. Our best practices are a farce with absolutely zero data to back up their validity. Ask yourselves where are the studies that prove candidates who crush leetcode perform better than those who couldn't? Where is the double blind research? I think there is something similar to art in GOOD software development, as somebody who does both. The primary reason I don't like coding for a living is the same reason I don't like writing fiction for a living: I really dislike being creative on demand and on a schedule. I find it stressful. I can't make myself get a story idea any more than I can make myself find an elegant solution to a coding issue. Sitting and staring at the screen more isn't going to solve the issue for me. Software development is to math/CS what painting is to color theory. There is science, but there's also creation. That's why it's so hard to measure and hire for. Imagine trying to judge 1000 newly graduated oil painters who had all taken the exact same classes. How would you decide who was 'best'?