When writing software, how fast you can type the code is rarely the limiting factor for speed of development – the architecting and consideration of interplay between components takes the bulk of the time. The grandparent claimed code reduction (which has intrinsic maintainability benefits) but made no statements about general cost of engineering.
Which is supposed to be what is simplified as LOC goes down.
So if a supposed 5x-10x code reduction (which I've never seen real evidence of) doesn't lead to 5x-10x productivity increase, how much increase is there supposed to be? Surely more than zero?
I don't think so. If you can express the same concepts with the same interfaces and functionality in 1kloc vs 10kloc, most of your time has probably still gone into figuring out the interfaces and connections.
> So if a supposed 5x-10x code reduction (which I've never seen real evidence of) doesn't lead to 5x-10x productivity increase, how much increase is there supposed to be? Surely more than zero?
Oh, certainly more than zero! Sometimes much more. But there's simply not a one-size-fits-all formula for the relationship between lines of code written and productivity.
Anyways, not really sure what you're getting at. Your original comment was that 10kloc isn't "big"; the rebuttal is that lines of code is a naive way of looking at system complexity, which is presumably what you mean by "big".