[vitriol83]

That’s rather solipsistic

[kickopotomus]

Rationale, motivations, project state etc. are all pretty relevant to any README. In the case of a library that solves a problem which already has known solutions, providing evidence of why your solution is better seems like a no-brainer.

[vitriol83]

They’re all very relevant, but I try not to expect the same from OSS projects as from a VC pitch deck. After all this is work given freely.

[nerdponx]

On the contrary, it's too narrow. It shouldn't be limited to open source. IMO any program that isn't a hobby/learning/research project should justify its existence before expecting people to use it.

[hombre_fatal]

A more charitable way I prefer to phrase it: ostensibly you invested time and effort and then shared it with the goal of other people using it, so investing further efforts into the readme helps you achieve this goal even though it might not be as fun as writing code.

It's like when someone shares their hobby programming language after investing 100s of hours of work yet didn't even invest 10 minutes writing a "quick start" heading of their readme. I would like to gently encourage them to reach for that low-hanging fruit that's so easy to overlook yet directly serves their goals.

[alexchamberlain]

solipsistic - adjective. of or characterized by solipsism, or the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist

-- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/solipsistic

... in case anyone else had to Google that