This is too reductive. It assumes that everyone codes the same way, that there is no difference in approaches, nothing for anyone involved to learn or improve o

This is too reductive. It assumes that everyone codes the same way, that there is no difference in approaches, nothing for anyone involved to learn or improve on. And yet things like thinking ahead, attention to detail, and applying new knowledge can make a big difference. If that difference is never recognized, that's not going to have a very good effect on morale, either. Maybe the person saying: "Who wrote this awful code" is just exasperated because they're seeing a sinking ship, know what causes it, but can't do anything about it. Writing poor code when under constraints is understandable. But there's bad code and then there's bad code. There are very different ways to write code that isn't ideal, but some forms cause far more problems than others. I think it's very dangerous to give a blanket OK to all bad code as if there is no difference. Not to mention, feedback. If I'm doing something awful in my code, I need to know, because I'm likely doing it because I don't know a better way. If I wrote it that way because there were constraints, then I can explain the decisions in the context of those constraints, as well, but there is nonetheless a standard I try to hold myself to even if there are constraints. This kind of thing is very subjective and comes down to the specific situation.