Lines of code ∝ Productivity

Large corperations obviously like the enforce the use languages in which

Lines of code ∝ Productivity

is true, this is at a sacrifice of:
  1) The total possibly productivity of programmers
  2) The sanity of programmers, and enjoyment of their work

Now give the context, I would like to throw into question my assumption.
That it is possible that Lines of code in a given language can directly related to Productivity, as opposed to the working environment of that language, namely

Libraries

Your post does not make sense. Perhaps you meant
d(Lines of code)/dt ∝ Productivity
?

>>2
1) you dont understand sage
2) you dont understand derivates
3) you dont understand ∝

>>3
Well, if there was a language where productivity was proportional with lines of code, I'd use it. Imagine how your productivity would shoot through the roof as your codebase grew.

Allow me to show you some nuances of sage:
Exhibit >>2 : minor correction.
Exhibit >>4 : GTFO!

I LISTEN TO INFECTED MUSHROOM WHILE I WRITE JAVA BECAUSE I AM 1337

Actually it is heavily correlated and like 2 said it is in change locs not just loc.

It also depends what part of the process your project is in.

And it is relative to the project itself, not external.

d(Lines of code)/dt ∝ Productivity

The faster you write em, the more productive you are.

>>3
It is YOU who understands not the derivative.

>>7
BITCH I IMPLEMENTED SYMBOLIC DIFFERENTIATION IN PROLOG AT AGE 2

>>7 is a retard

the faster you write them, the more time spent debugging

>>9
finally, someone non-stupid

The Computer Language Shootout compares languages on different things like program size. Ruby and Python are the shortest, but I don't remember if Lisp was included. And there are other comparisons like Script-o-meter.

I've researched development speed and productivity. I don't have the final answer, but
-I'm still fastest in C/UNIX due to years of experience. I've
 accumulated many general purpose routines so programming
 for me is largely cut and paste. And I rarely waste time
 looking up techniques and library functions because I
 already know them well. I would not recommed C to a beginner
 today, though. It makes the road to satori too long.
-Languages DESIGNED to be easy are a good middle step toward
 the higher plane. Python is it. Somebody put some effort
 into making the learning curve short for the syntax and
 libraries. There are compact languages like Squeak, but I
 think they're trumped by Python's "batteries included"
 libraries. van Rossum tried to make a language for novices
 that would continue to be useful to them as they became
 expert. He did a good job.
-I agree with the arguments that very high levels of
 abstraction are the ultimate productivity answer. The highest
 abstraction level is the boss telling the programmer what he
 wants. The next highest is probably Lisp.
-There was An Age of Broken Dreams [Vinge] where much effort
 and University dollars went into Computer Aided Software
 Engineering, visual programming languages (Software Through
 Pictures, hah), mathematically proveable correct
 programs (Prolog, ML, etc.), and expert systems that wrote
 programs. They didn't help. Don't spend your time on those,
 even if they seem like great ideas on the surface.

What, no flames? Not even a "Forced indentation" spam? Slow day.

The last Ubuntu You.

Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!