This says more about you and the people you work with. I find engineers that have been at the company for a while are quite invaluable when it comes to this information, it's not just knowing the how but the when + why that's critical as well.

Acting like people can't be good at their job is frankly dehumanizing and says a lot about your mindset with how you view other fellow devs.

If only more engineers admitted, that something they wrote is not good code, but a product of its time, then I think we would get more realistic expectations.

It's OK to say that something you made is shit. It is OK to say that you were not given time to do xyz.

How you recognize something has been made fitting at least is, when you see it in use without much of a change for some 3 or 4 years and while you are the person maintaining it, you rarely ever need to touch it, because you built it in a way that is simple enough to not have tons of bugs yet flexible enough, to cover use-cases and anticipated use-cases.

Please let's stop with the "but some humans also suck at this so it's ok if LLMs also suck at it" argument. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Admitting you've spent two decades on a career stuck working in the kind of sweatshops that hire people who can't actually code isn't much of a flex, and certainly doesn't lend a whole lot of credence to your argument.

Not the GP, but when I take strolls through some open source project hosted on GitHub, usually I am not impressed either. Unnecessary OOPism, way too long procedures, that instead could be pure functions, badly named variables, and way, way, waaay too many willy-nilly added dependencies. If that is what the LLMs mostly learn from, I am not surprised at all. But then again this stuff was also written by humans. I remember one especially bad case of a procedure in a very popular project (in its niche) that was basically a 1 man show. A procedure of 300+ lines doing all kinds of stuff, changing the global state of that service it is implementing. But that code was or is relied upon by tech giants and other businesses and no one improves it. They are happy with paying that one guy probably not so much money.

Awesome! However, the corporate is excited with using AI, making the coder the one who's at risk at getting fired for writing the exact same lousy (for the sake of the argument) code.

Or worse: for not relying as much as possible to the AI who apparently can write just as bad code but faster!

A subtle detail: you speak of coders, not software engineers. A SWE's value is not his code churning speed.