Is building software “just for yourself” really a serious approach—or is it a shortcut that limits quality and usefulness?
There is a widespread belief in modern software culture that building “for yourself” is indulgent. That real software must be shaped by users, validated by metrics, and justified by demand. Anything else is framed as a hobby, a prototype, or something that must eventually grow up into a market-facing product.
In practice, the opposite is often true.
Some of the most robust, calm, and long-lasting software exists precisely because it was built for one person who cared deeply about how it worked. Building for yourself does not reduce quality; it often increases it—because it removes guesswork, distortion, and false urgency from the process.
The Cost of Building for Imaginary Users
When you build for users you have never met, you do not actually build for users at all. You build for assumptions.
These assumptions usually take the form of:
“Users will probably want…”
“People expect software to…”
“Competitors all have this feature…”
Each assumption adds weight. Features accumulate not because they are needed, but because they feel safer than omission. Over time, the software becomes shaped by fear of disappointing someone who may not even exist.
This is how complexity enters systems quietly.
When you build for yourself, that fog disappears. There is no abstract audience. There is only the real experience of using the tool. If something is awkward, you feel it immediately. If something is unnecessary, it irritates you every time you encounter it.
That feedback loop is direct, honest, and impossible to ignore.
Focus Comes From Lived Experience, Not Research
User research has its place, but it is a poor substitute for lived experience.
When you are the user:
You know the context in which the tool is used
You understand the edge cases because you live them
You recognise friction instantly
You notice when something is technically correct but practically wrong
This kind of insight cannot be replicated through surveys or analytics. It emerges through repetition—through daily use, minor annoyances, and slow realisation.
Software built this way tends to feel quieter and more intentional. It does fewer things, but the things it does are deeply aligned with how the work actually happens.
Faster Iteration Without the Performance of Progress
When software is built for others, iteration often becomes performative. Features are added to show momentum. Changes are shipped to signal responsiveness. Roadmaps exist to reassure.
When you build for yourself, iteration becomes pragmatic instead.
You change things because:
They slow you down
They confuse you
They no longer fit your workflow
Progress is measured by relief, not release notes.
This leads to a very different kind of improvement cycle—one that values stability over novelty, and usefulness over visibility.
Emotional Ownership Changes How Software Is Maintained
There is a noticeable difference between software you tolerate and software you rely on.
When you use your own tool:
Bugs interrupt your work, not someone else’s
Poor decisions cost you time, not reputation
Maintenance becomes personal rather than contractual
This creates a strong incentive to keep things simple, predictable, and durable. You do not chase cleverness for its own sake. You value boring reliability because it protects your time.
Software built this way is often maintained longer—not because it is monetised, but because abandoning it would be inconvenient.
Quality Emerges When Features Must Earn Their Place
One of the clearest benefits of building for yourself is restraint.
Every feature has a cost:
More code to maintain
More decisions to make
More ways things can break
When features exist “for users,” those costs are abstract. When features exist for you, the costs are immediate.
This encourages a different standard of quality: sufficiency. The software does what it needs to do, cleanly and consistently, without pretending to be everything at once.
Feature creep becomes harder to justify when you are the one who has to live with it.
Practical Task: Strip One Feature That Exists “For Users”
Choose a tool or project you have worked on and identify one feature that exists primarily because:
“Users might expect it”
“Other tools have it”
“It felt safer to include it”
Now ask:
Do you actually use this feature?
Does it simplify or complicate the core workflow?
Would removing it make the tool clearer?
You do not need to delete it yet. Just recognise why it exists.
Practical Task: Redesign One Workflow Around Reality
Pick one common action you perform with your software.
Write down:
- The exact steps you take
- The order you perform them in
- Where you hesitate or work around the tool
Now redesign that flow as if no one else mattered. No documentation. No onboarding. Just speed and clarity for you.
This exercise often reveals how much software is shaped by imagined behaviour rather than real use.
When Others Eventually Enter the Picture
Building for yourself does not mean excluding others forever. It simply means refusing to let external expectations distort the foundation.
If others later benefit from your tool, that is a signal not an obligation. The software remains grounded because its core logic was never compromised to appeal to a market.
Tools built this way often attract users precisely because they feel coherent and unforced.
A Different Definition of “Better”
Better software is not always bigger software. It is not always more configurable, more extensible, or more impressive.
Often, better software is quieter. It stays out of the way. It does not demand attention. It simply works, day after day, without negotiation.
Building for yourself makes this kind of quality possible—because it replaces speculation with experience, and performance with honesty.
For many developers, that shift is not just productive. It is sustaining.
Thanks for sharing:
