CS publication culture is a large part of the problem. The average CS paper is small (in terms of person-years put into the project), so people submit many papers. Most papers are submitted to conferences first, which usually accept or reject after a single round of reviews. When the typical outcome is rejection and resubmission to another conference, the negative aspects of peer review become prominent.

Over the years, I've drifted to the biological side of bioinformatics methods. The papers I write are similar to CS papers, but the projects are bigger, and I no longer submit papers to CS conferences. My typical experience with peer review is accept after 1-3 rounds of revisions. Hence I get to see more of the positive side, where the reviewers act as editors and their suggestions improve the paper.

Of course, it's possible to get a CS-like experience with journals by being ambitious. If you try your luck by submitting the paper to prestigious journals it's unlikely to get in, your typical outcome is a desk rejection or rejection after a single round of reviews. Then you get to see more of the negative side of peer review. But I'm just not interested in playing that game.