At a talk of his it lead to a very heated discussion where an older professor accused him of wasting government money on such nonsense.
By the way, those of that opinion are all professors who wanted me on their labs, but I turned them down...
As indeed, I wrote an analysis framework for my data (of a gaseous detector used for axion search) [0] instead of using an existing framework used by my predecessor. However, things are always more complicated than they seem. Many of those not talked about students who rewrite stuff probably have reasons!
In my case the existing framework [1] was a monster that was bent to allow it to work with the kind of data we have in the first place. In my case my detector had several additional features, which fit _even less_ into the existing framework. It would have been a hack and still a significant amount of work to make it work well.
To be fair, when I started this I expected it to be less work than it ended up being. But that's the story of software development.
The advantages now are significant of course. I know the whole codebase. It does exactly what I want. I can extend it easily as I see fit.
That doesn't mean I didn't also partly procrastinate writing software. Far from it. Hell, there was no reason to write a freaking plotting library (a sort of port of ggplot2 for Nim) [3]. But again, this means my thesis will have plots created natively using a TikZ backend while at the same time provide links to Vega-Lite plots for each and every plot in my thesis (which of course will include the data for each plot!).
Finally, the most important point: A university / professor who only pays me for 20h a week does not get to tell me how I do my PhD.
[0]: https://github.com/Vindaar/TimepixAnalysis [1]: https://ilcsoft.desy.de/portal/software_packages/marlintpc/ [2]: https://github.com/Vindaar/ggplotnim
End result so far? I'm quite respected, still one of the leading researchers in my country on my specific topic, but since I don't have a PhD (because of the aforementioned delays, and some grumpy professors actively pushing against me) I'm starting to lose access to grants and programs.
I'd still do it all again, but with a few tweaks here and there, you know hindsight always helping.
In my (albeit limited) experience, software is a pretty common deliverable from a grant, at least in computational biology. This has also been my experience with more alternative funding sources like CZI and DARPA.
Taken more broadly, I think there is a huge disconnect between what academics are paid to do, and what takes most of their time. Review is unpaid. Grants are not dependent on which journal the results go into, but time could be saved by aiming lower. A salary can be payed from a research grant, while the investigator still has to teach.
For a scientist, writing useful software is a good way to get exposure, build a reputation and get citations. It’s an opportunity to do some different kind of problem solving than usual. It’s also a way of understanding how the software really work (which assumptions are built in, which methods are used, and how does it affect the software’s results?). This does help improve the quality of subsequent results.
A grant typically (there are exceptions, of course) lists things that are going to be studied. How the studying is done is typically down to the people doing the work. It certainly isn’t for grumpy old professors who hear a talk at a conference to judge.