>http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9904/15/slacker.idg/

Hi Wayne,

This, of course, isn't aimed at you or anyone on the UT. Just my thoughts.

Of all the pieces of trash and/or garbage I've read, this one is right up there. I'll let the readers of this determine which "can" to throw it in.

The premise that productivity is measured by lines of code produce is nonsense. Since at least the mid-80s, code re-usability has been, and is, of utmost import. Numerous studies have concluded that the "real" cost of system development is on the back-end, not the front. What this means is that you and I will spend more time maintaining the application and correcting bugs than we will developing it.

Assume that I develop 1,000 lines of "bullet-proof" code in a 40 hour week. Assume also that someone else, somewhere else, produces 2,000 lines of "non-bullet-proof" code in a 70 hour week. Now assume that during the course his developement it takes another 70 hours to maintain it after delivery, while the original code I wrote in 40 hours requires 0 hours of support and maintenance. If folks can't figure out that my stuff cost less, that I'm more efficient, they need some remedial math.

Finally, I must say that I've little respect for any publication, whether it be print or electronic, that doesn't know the difference between a word that's an acronym and one that isn't. COBOL is an acronym. As such it should be written in all upper case.