The article says that because the mentors found the project work acceptable, then lines of code becomes a good measure of productivity, even though it generally

The article says that because the mentors found the project work acceptable, then lines of code becomes a good measure of productivity, even though it generally wouldn't be. But I think it's still a bad measure of productivity. In fact, I think the lesser amount of code for the same size project is more productive. I'd prefer the programmer who can meet the project goals in 4,000 lines of code over the one who does it in 20,000 lines. Given those two numbers, I can't help but feel that the 20,000 lines is spaghetti code. (I realize this in my own prejudice and it may not be the case.) As Antoine de Saint Exupery says: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Going for perfection, in most cases, is probably not the most productive use of time. But I think this quote is still generally true for programming.