The ratio in your case is not only infinite, it's also meaningless. So what if a hypothetical programmer can code while a baby can't? That's an infinite productivity ratio that's just as meaningless.
Say a technically ambitious software startup crashes and burns because, despite their best efforts, they never managed to get a working product out the door before running out of money.
If you were asked to do a postmortem on that, would you be insisting that the skill level and productivity of the programmers involved was "meaningless" to the outcome? Not even address it in the report?
This has nothing to do with the parent post which is comparing programmers of different skill levels. You want th compare programmers to non programmers. That's meaningless. Of course programmers can program and non programmers cannot. If a company hires non programmers and expects then to program without any training, then yes the skill of the non programmers is not the issue. The sanity and competence of the hiring manager is and is the only thing that would show up in the postmortem. You're going to blame the non programmers for not programming? What do you expect them to do?
Are you going to hire someone who is 4'11" and never played basketball before in the NBA? Are you going to hire a janitor to lead your space program? All so you can say that your qualified employees are infinitely better? That's ludicrous but exactly what you're suggesting.
> You want to compare programmers to non programmers.
No I don't. I said technically ambitious startup because I didn't mean a scenario where the group was too clueless to even program something easy. Read my comment assuming the programmers in that startup scenario are average industry programmers. Does your answer change?
