We are discussing productivity in the corporate bureaucracy, not efficacy and fame. And do you have any evidence that the success of those projects were due to those persons rather than the environment in which the projects were developed and supported?
And before you reply, no efficacy is not productivity unless you are going to credit the original microsoft windows developers as productive as well.
no, I'm claiming if we use fame, popularity, and complexity of a software product as a measure of productivity of its original developers, then the original windows developers must be 10e8 times more productive than everyone else. Of course they are not 10e8 times more productive, and therefore fame, popularity, and complexity of software products are not good measures of developer productivity.
And before you reply, no efficacy is not productivity unless you are going to credit the original microsoft windows developers as productive as well.