Why is that "obviously wrong"? To me it sounds more like a truism (or a circular argument, since the definition of "good developer" includes whether they improv

Why is that "obviously wrong"? To me it sounds more like a truism (or a circular argument, since the definition of "good developer" includes whether they improve the products they work on). In other words, if that statement is false, it follows that software products can only improve if left to languish (i.e. bitrot must have a positive effect), or if the product is worked on by bad developers. And why would they be called bad developers if they succeed in improving the product they work on?