Code, at least the way we currently write it, is a fundamentally lossy transfer. The coder has the context in their head; they understand what's happening up to

Code, at least the way we currently write it, is a fundamentally lossy transfer. The coder has the context in their head; they understand what's happening up to that point, what they want to happen now, and what needs to happen later. Writing code is translating those concepts and ideas into a specialized step-by-step list of machine instructions. In the course of writing the concepts in a dumbed-down format for an instruction machine, context is inevitably lost. You can say "write comments" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't solve the problem. Then, someone new comes along, and they don't understand the context, they never knew anything about it before, and you quit 8 months ago. This person must infer the context and determine an accurate conception of the context from the pieces left behind. The approach taken when one finds themselves in that position is one of the key tells of their skill and experience IMO. Regardless, it seems that if the software got out of the loose demo/messing around phase, it deserves at least some consideration before it's dismissed out of hand as "bad code".