"Clean" is a poor descriptor for source code. The word "clean" in reference to software is simply an indicator of "goodness" or "a pleasant aesthetic", as oppo

"Clean" is a poor descriptor for source code. The word "clean" in reference to software is simply an indicator of "goodness" or "a pleasant aesthetic", as opposed to the opposite word "dirty", which we associate with undesireable features or poor health (that being another misnomer, that dirty things are unhealthy, or that clean things are healthy; neither are strictly true). "Clean" is not being used to describe a specific quality; instead it's merely "a feeling". Rather than call code "clean" or "dirty", we should use a more specific and measurable descriptor that can actually be met, like "quality", "best practice", "code as documentation", "high abstraction", "low complexity", etc. You can tell when something meets that criteria. But what counts as "clean" to one person may not to another, and it doesn't actually mean the end result will be better. "Clean" has already been abandoned when talking about other things, like STDs. "Clean" vs "Dirty" in that context implies a moral judgement on people who have STDs or don't, when in fact having an STD is often not a choice at all. By using more specific terms like "positive", or simply describing what specific STDs one has, the abstract moral judgement and unhelpful "feeling" is removed, and replaced with objective facts.