[hpaavola]

Of course technically better implementation is better if the only thing that changes is the technical quality of the implementation.

But it does not follow that doing good software is a technical challenge. It does not matter how fast your algorithm is if nobody wants the results that it spits out.

Defining good software is really hard task, but in general what I mean by it is that good software increases the well-being of its users. Yes, one aspect of that is the technical quality of the implementation.

[usea]

What happens when the needs of the customers or users change? What happens when your understanding of their needs was imperfect and needs to be updated? Is the software that met the old needs still good? Was it ever good?

What happens when the software could only ever meet the old needs, but is impossible to update to meet the new needs? Was it ever good?

Needs change. The ability for software to be altered to meet evolving needs is not simply a "technical quality of the implementation." It doesn't just have a faster algorithm. It's better software.

[hpaavola]

I'm not sure what part we disagree here. Yes, technical quality matters. But it matters way less than delivering something that users need. And yes, better technical quality ceteris paribus equals better software.

[usea]

We disagree whether meeting the needs of your users is a technical challenge. The ability for software to meet changing needs is a technical quality of the software.

[hpaavola]

The ability for software to meet the needs is mostly a technical problem. After all, it is a feature of the implementation. But that is not the bigger problem. The bigger problem is to figure out the needs and that is not a tecnical problem.