This seems like it's getting a bit repetitive at this point. I argue that a concept that is difficult to measure necessarily has a vague, useless, or exceedingl

This seems like it's getting a bit repetitive at this point. I argue that a concept that is difficult to measure necessarily has a vague, useless, or exceedingly complex definition. I'm not seeing a good argument to the contrary. Yes, I get that the idea of programmer productivity seems simple. It's just how much "stuff" they do! But, once you start trying to work out the details of what "stuff" is and how to evaluate programmer productivity, it all suddenly turns into a big hairy pear-shaped mess. To me, this makes the concept of programmer productivity pretty darn useless. And yes, I've worked with or observed a pretty wide variety of developers. As is the case with any other industry, there are some geniuses and other people that are just fantastic -- but also, they tend to be people who have found the right role for their personality and interests. I've also seen a lot of fair-to-middling people who had unsung talents but were stuck keeping the lights on somewhere. I don't think any of this is helpful for understanding the meaning of productivity. Managers have been trying to figure out how to evaluate developer productivity for at least 25 years -- that would've been about the time I read my first trade rag. All they've managed to do is generate a lot of human misery. You'd think 25 years would be long enough for people to come around to the idea that maybe this developer productivity thing they're chasing is an illusion. But ... naaah.