<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Review: Some basic determinants of computer programming productivity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.webfoot.com/2007/06/12/productivity-factors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.webfoot.com/2007/06/12/productivity-factors/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:19:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ducky</title>
		<link>http://blog.webfoot.com/2007/06/12/productivity-factors/comment-page-1/#comment-261</link>
		<dc:creator>ducky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.webfoot.com/blog/2007/06/12/productivity-factors/#comment-261</guid>
		<description>Oh, no doubt!

Coding in Cobol in 1978 clearly is different from coding in e.g. Java in 2007.  Syntax coloring, easy cross-references, findbugs, etc etc etc are all very good things.  Life is different now.

Unfortunately, there are very few studies on programmer productivity *period*.  It&#039;s lousy data, in some ways, but it&#039;s the only data I have.

Also, note that me doing a review of a paper is NOT an endorsement of the paper.  I&#039;m reviewing the papers so that other people can choose whether or not to read the papers themselves.

Hmmm, I think I&#039;ll go and stick &quot;Review:&quot; in the title of blog posts that are reviews...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, no doubt!</p>
<p>Coding in Cobol in 1978 clearly is different from coding in e.g. Java in 2007.  Syntax coloring, easy cross-references, findbugs, etc etc etc are all very good things.  Life is different now.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are very few studies on programmer productivity *period*.  It&#8217;s lousy data, in some ways, but it&#8217;s the only data I have.</p>
<p>Also, note that me doing a review of a paper is NOT an endorsement of the paper.  I&#8217;m reviewing the papers so that other people can choose whether or not to read the papers themselves.</p>
<p>Hmmm, I think I&#8217;ll go and stick &#8220;Review:&#8221; in the title of blog posts that are reviews&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Loyd</title>
		<link>http://blog.webfoot.com/2007/06/12/productivity-factors/comment-page-1/#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Loyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:46:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.webfoot.com/blog/2007/06/12/productivity-factors/#comment-260</guid>
		<description>Maybe this is a cheap shot, but I wonder if it&#039;s really wise to draw conclusions about programming from Cobol programming. We don&#039;t judge professional sports training regimens by performance in three-legged races.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe this is a cheap shot, but I wonder if it&#8217;s really wise to draw conclusions about programming from Cobol programming. We don&#8217;t judge professional sports training regimens by performance in three-legged races.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
