>From experience, those announcing that a codebase is bad sounds more resume-driven than technical. It sounds like they want to make a mark more than making a f

>From experience, those announcing that a codebase is bad sounds more resume-driven than technical. It sounds like they want to make a mark more than making a functional difference. Graybeard here (been doing development for money for 40+ years). It's one thing to say a codebase is bad because of style, aesthetics or lack of comment; it's another to try to enumerate what that means. To me, a codebase is bad when it's hard to modify and hard to unit/integration test because of the architectural decisions that were made (which boil down to it not being properly layered and modular, overusing inheritance vs composition, using inscrutable variable names, etc).