Yes, there are huge differences between the needs of various fields. For example, some fields have a lot of papers where the authors are presenting a superior method for doing something, and if code is a key part of that new "method and apparatus", then it's a key deliverable of that paper and its accessibility and (re-)usability is very important; and if a core claim of their paper is that "we coded A and B, and experimentally demonstrated that A is better than B" then any flaws in that code may invalidate the whole experiment.

But I seem to get the vibe that this original Nature article is mostly about the auxiliary data analysis code for "non-simulated" experiments, while Hacker News seems biased towards fields like computer science, machine learning, etc.