Why is useful a metric? This is about software delivery, what one person deems useful is subjective

Perhaps I'm misreading the person to whom you're replying, but usefullness, while subjective, isn't typically based on one person's opinion. If enough people agree on the usefullness of something, we as a collective call it "useful".

Perhaps we take the example of a blender. There's enough need to blend/puree/chop food-like-items, that a large group of people agree on the usefullness of a blender. A salad-shooter, while a novel idea, might not be seen as "useful".

Creating software that most folks wouldn't find useful still might be considered "neat" or "cool". But it may not be adding anything to the industry. The fact that someone shipped something quickly doesn't make it any better.

	▲	PUSH_AX 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ultimately, or at least in this discussion, we should decouple the software’s end use from the question of whether it satisfies the creator’s requirements and vision in a safe and robust way. How you get there and what happens after are two different problems.

▲

darkwater 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why is useful a metric?

"and you realise the code just enables the business it all of a sudden becomes a velocity God send."

If a business is not useful, well, it will fail. So, so much autogenerated code for nothing.

	▲	PUSH_AX 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I see, I guess every business I haven’t used personally, because it wasn’t useful to me, has failed… Usefulness isn’t a good metric for this.
	▲	imiric 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's not for nothing. When a profitable product can be created in a fraction of the time and effort previously required, the tool to create it will attract scammers and grifters like bees to honey. It doesn't matter if the "business" around it fails, if a new one can be created quickly and cheaply. This is the same idea behind brands with random letters selling garbage physical products, only applied to software.