> They aren't top of the leaderboard in git commits, because they actually read the RFCs or dependancy source code while working. They sure as hell don't always write the most LOC in a week - I want the "minus 2000 lines of code" guy
Yes, these engineers are invaluable. But the "minus 2000 LOC" engineer is rare.
In my ~25 years of experience at several top companies, I've seen that --more often than not-- the most impactful coders are writing the most LOC. And they're not gaming it either. They are simply writing a ton of high-quality code: features, bug fixes, optimizations, cleanups, etc. Yes, occasionally there is a crazy heisenbug that takes 3 weeks for a one-line change, but that is rare.
Note that I deliberately use the word "coder" (which I don't usually do) instead of the more generic "engineer." Because I'm not talking about those critical senior engineers whose job is mostly to prevent others from writing bad code.
Agreed. At the end of the day - the end user of the software probably wants something other than technical debt reduction, so it's not surprising impact and LOC can roughly be correlated.
Taking the LOC metric too far, in either direction, is trying to read too much into a single metric.
Yes, these engineers are invaluable. But the "minus 2000 LOC" engineer is rare.
In my ~25 years of experience at several top companies, I've seen that --more often than not-- the most impactful coders are writing the most LOC. And they're not gaming it either. They are simply writing a ton of high-quality code: features, bug fixes, optimizations, cleanups, etc. Yes, occasionally there is a crazy heisenbug that takes 3 weeks for a one-line change, but that is rare.
Note that I deliberately use the word "coder" (which I don't usually do) instead of the more generic "engineer." Because I'm not talking about those critical senior engineers whose job is mostly to prevent others from writing bad code.