I find the whole idea of using "writing speed" as the factor describing how good is a programmer, plainly: stupid. Honestly, you can be a mindless person making weird, overblown constructs all day, and then you can be a smart developer that thinks before writing few characters and solving the same problem. I would rather consider efficiency as the factor: process and output efficiency.

Process efficiency is how organised is the process of the development — a.k.a. getting things done. If somebody keeps shipping stuff, they are process efficient. Even if it's the smallest thing ever, just keeping the flow going.

Then there's the output efficiency — how efficient is the thing that was shipped. Is the code high quality? Is the algorithm performing well in the problem's domain? Is the code running "fast"?

I personally think that the best developers optimise their work on these two fields: they keep delivering great output code most of the time. Because what is better: lots of bad code in short time, or good code taking more time?