[xwdv]

What’s with the sappy, weepy tone here?

If someone made a household cleaning detergent or some vitamin powder that nobody wanted, would we still be saying these products aren’t really for users, but rather are just another medium of self expression?

Is it okay for them to still exist? Sure, it’s also okay to be a loser. Seen through a capitalist lens, the point of a product is to serve a useful purpose. If nobody wants or needs it, it doesn’t suddenly become a work of art representing an extension of its creator – it’s just a shitty product.

The market is a conversation, and if you’re not making something people want, you’re not connecting with others, you’re just babbling to yourself. Software always seems to be held to some different standard, but it really shouldn’t. Code is cattle, not pets.

[barrysteve]

Good luck making something as big as cattle if you can't even make dogs, or mice.

Good luck avoiding burn out, making nothing but cattle all day long.

Sometimes, making a peacock will get you laid. Sometimes, making a dove will being you peace of mind.

Sometimes making a turtle will teach your child how to make (eventually) cattle too.

The market sure is a conversation, and I'm impressed by developers that can create cattle AND peacocks, doves, turtles and dogs.

A guy that makes only what the market wants, is kind of boring? Or have I overstated it?

[xwdv]

A guy that consistently makes what the market wants sounds pretty exciting for the market.

[firewolf34]

Cattle and pets both exist. You want cattle? Make cattle. You want pets? Make pets. Why the absolution?

[xwdv]

Cattle don’t make good pets.

[ThrowAway1922A]

Not all animals are cattle ;)