Is is correct to judge a developer's performance this way?
jacquesm: The fairest way to judge a developer - any developer - is long term stable contribution to your project, in other words if they bring you value for the money you spend.If someone is a perfectionist takes a year to complete a small item then it may be perfect, but by the time it is done (0 bugs to fix) the company may be bust.The opposite, someone that is extremely productive but so sloppy that you are basically thrown in to 'crisis mode' by default is also untenable and not value for money.The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, good enough to go to production in an acceptable time.Things like 'bugs fixed', lines of code or anything like that are not going to cut it because they can be inflated or spoofed with great ease.When you hire a developer you hire time from somebody else for your dollars, as long as it is worth to you what you pay for it you have a good developer.You can start 'qualitative' comparisons by employing several developers in parallel, seeing which ones work best and then slowly over time try to improve your 'mix'.There are no absolutes in this.