[closewith]

> If gross sales is literally the only important metric in software engineering we've already failed.

It literally is the only important metric is commercial software development. Not sure how you could delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

[_heimdall]

Context matters, you've boiled it down way too far. Gross sales is a primary metric for the business, that isn't necessarily and shouldn't be a primary goal for the engineers building the software.

[closewith]

Context does matter, and you're missing the forest for the trees. It's native to think there's any other metric that matters.

[_heimdall]

Again you aren't saying matters for whom.

For the engineer writing code, I would absolutely expect they have different priorities and metrics than the business or accounting department.

I personally wouldn't even consider hiring a dev who makes clear that the only metric they care about is gross sales.

[closewith]

> For the engineer writing code, I would absolutely expect they have different priorities and metrics than the business or accounting department.

And yet the business has that expectation.

> I personally wouldn't even consider hiring a dev who makes clear that the only metric they care about is gross sales.

Yes, you would, as you are instructed to. The only difference is that you have deluded yourself that there are interim metrics that actually matter, when they are all lossy abstractions of revenue or profit.

[_heimdall]

> Yes, you would, as you are instructed to. The only difference is that you have deluded yourself that there are interim metrics that actually matter, when they are all lossy abstractions of revenue or profit.

It sounds like we have lived very different lives. I have hired engineers and never once asked, or cared, how highly they value gross sales. I have also never been instructed to do so.

In engineering orgs I have hired for, the metrics prioritized are always related to estimating and delivering features on time, code quality (often through test coverage or bug count), etc. When hiring, the focus is on skills and experience that would likely lead to those outcomes.

Let's try a different industry. A politician will care most about how quickly and cost effectively a new bridge can be built. Do you think those should also be the only factors that matter to those actually building the bridge?

[closewith]

> In engineering orgs I have hired for, the metrics prioritized are always related to estimating and delivering features on time, code quality (often through test coverage or bug count), etc. When hiring, the focus is on skills and experience that would likely lead to those outcomes

Those are lossy abstractions for profit in the private sector. Again, you're missing the forest for the trees.

What's really happening here is that you are unable to see your commercial role, and instead are focused on the vanity metrics you think are important.

Every one of those metrics would be sacrificed in an instant by the business if it increased sales. They're only even marginally important as long as they align with that goal.

> A politician will care most about how quickly and cost effectively a new bridge can be built. Do you think those should also be the only factors that matter to those actually building the bridge?

The public sector is a different beast, but again your understanding is completely divorced from reality.

Public infrastructure projects in democracies are built to secure votes. That's the only criteria outside of the engineering requirements which are written in law in blood.