A look at the 3.12 development cycle

Posted Oct 23, 2013 20:53 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
In reply to: A look at the 3.12 development cycle by dougg
Parent article: A look at the 3.12 development cycle

I can't help but agree. Well-written code tends to be much shorter than badly-written one, so the LoC numbers mean nothing. And what's even worse is that they might lead people (e. g. hiring managers) to the wrong conclusions about who is productive and who isn't. I think they're therefore worse than useless. Sorry Jon :-(

Still useful

Posted Oct 23, 2013 21:04 UTC (Wed) by david.a.wheeler (subscriber, #72896) [Link]

I suspect that a lot of code written to take "as many lines as possible" would be rejected, especially since there's an established format. So while lines of code are only a rough estimate of effort, lines of code are still strongly correlated with effort.

You could try using a SLOC-counting tool that strips out comments and blank lines.

A look at the 3.12 development cycle

Posted Oct 23, 2013 21:45 UTC (Wed) by dashesy (guest, #74652) [Link]

If hiring management looks at LoC to hire, it is them to blame for demise of their company. IMO, just contributing to the kernel is enough for most positions, but more LoC also means revealing more about the talent, just more material to look in the eyes of the wise :)