Well, you're not saying it right. When a non-programmer (and even some programmers) hear "bad code", they start thinking in terms of aesthetics. In fact, "bad code" is sometimes just called "ugly code", making the analogy worse. Fast, responsive code is probably "ugly" to some people, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maintainable code is so verbose as to be considered "bad" to some on first glance, but proves its worth when the requirements change. Rather than talk about code quality, we should be harping on product quality, which can only be achieved through consistent software (dare I say?) engineering practices - which, if followed consistently and unapologetically, will accidentally lead to "good" code.