I agree with the article, to a degree, and to that end I think the article makes a valuable point, as do some of the comments - which add value to the discussion. I especially like the example of the code deletion v. code creation. I have worked on many codebases where I have deleted a lot more code than I have written to fix a particular issue or even to add a feature. I always try to leave the codebase no worse than I found it, and if I can I try to improve it. If I do that by removing lines of code (as a net result) and making the code easier and simpler to understand, then I feel a lot more "productive" than if I simply add more code to the mess that is already there. I also agree with the assessment of value as a measure of productivity, and I think there is some amount of people talking past each other here; the point of the author is exactly that of a *type* of productivity, a kind of productivity that adds value - and that is the context of "productivity", otherwise I could just sit down at my computer and work on my personal projects and say "see, I created 10 thousand lines of code today", but my boss would still fire me because what I produced was of no value to my employer and therefore I was not productive in the sense that I was employed to be.