I&#x27;d be totally OK with a &quot;lines of code&quot; metric. If that was what my raise is going to be based on, let&#x27;s do it! At least it&#x27;s a metric and I know about it!<p>I&#x27;ve worked at my fair share of companies, and not one of them based raises&#x2F;bonuses (for engineers) on any kind of quantifiable metric or KPI. It basically always comes down to whether your boss likes you, or how much self-promotion you&#x27;re doing, or what phase the moon is currently in, or some other wizardry. It&#x27;s never a concrete metric that you can track your progress against throughout the year and know if you&#x27;re going to succeed or not.<p>One of the questions I ask in every interview is: Is my compensation entirely dependent on my job performance, and if so, what metrics are used to evaluate my performance. For some reason, nobody seems to have a good answer for that seemingly simple question. Sometimes they&#x27;ll say &quot;yea it&#x27;s performance based&quot;, but when you press for what they&#x27;re measuring, you won&#x27;t get any information. So I&#x27;ll take the job, and a year later annual review time comes, and lo and behold, it&#x27;s &quot;Here&#x27;s your [good|bad|neutral] (it doesn&#x27;t matter) performance review and your 1.5% cost-of-living increase!&quot; Very demoralizing. Show me a place with clear, transparent, quantifiable performance metrics, and I&#x27;ll beat a path to your door.