In the paper On the correlation between size and metric validity Gil and Lalouche conclude that all popular software metrics are only valid insofar as they are correlated with code size.
They use several definitions of size including lines of code, number of tokens, and size of gzipped code.
Are there any actionable conclusions we can draw from this other than write less code if possible?
Do I understand correctly that "instability", "bugginess", and "change complexity" scale linearly with code size? Does that mean even splitting one big project into several smaller projects is doomed to have the same absolute number of bugs and no other objective metric is better than code size for this purpose?