Code "quality" is almost always an opinion, and not one that is based on anything objective. That doesn't mean that the idea of it doesn't have a purpose, but

Code "quality" is almost always an opinion, and not one that is based on anything objective. That doesn't mean that the idea of it doesn't have a purpose, but it's almost always used as a bat to knock someone over the head with. It's not like code can be distinguished as fresh or moldy and rotten like fruit. If that were so, then most programmers would hardly ever bicker about code quality; it would be self-evident, just as any moron can separate the good fruit from the bad. If a unit of code fixes or improves the user experience without slowing it down and is memory efficient, then it becomes incredibly hard to objectively define said code as being bad. Perhaps it ruins the developer experience, but then again, many programmers object to things they simply don't like on a philosophical or theological basis. Programmers, depending on the language community, may consider anything that isn't "object oriented" to be poor quality, but good luck finding objective proof that object orientation is always better.