Merely publishing it at all would be helpful. That way other people can pick it up and modify it to work for them. That's still better than them flying blind and having to completely rewrite your code from scratch.
It's really infuriating to see researchers creating this false dichotomy between publishing production-quality software and publishing any code at all.
The folks who are asking for this are NOT asking for: (1) production quality code (2) portable code (3) an open source project based on the work (one way code dump is fine) (4) well commented high quality code (5) any support using the code beyond which would normally be afforded fellow researchers in reproducing one's results.
We (me and anyone else who is asking) understand that there may be some circumstances in which not all data can be published due to privacy, or in which code depends on proprietary dependencies that can't be shared. That's fine. Document it if you can as a disclaimer, and people can work on getting access to those private resources if they need to.
Anyone funding research should expect this; and publicly funded research should be required to disclose all technical work product that's materially involved in published results.
In fact, if they are they're using a pretty ineffective path to get paid.