>it will improve the quality of the code

That does not mean the product becomes more useful. I could rewrite Windows 1-to-1 with better code quality and no one would care because it still provides the exact same features. Unless "better code" means "better features", better code is useless.

▲

assumed_throwaw 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is extremely short-sighted. Software is not a static product. "Improve code quality" translates into being able to add features more quickly and with less risk of bugs. For an open-source project, this also gives readers the opportunity to understand the codebase and learn from it.

	▲	jaapz 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This was true when adding features cost a lot of time and mental effort. Nowadays, it's just a prompt away. LLM's can still run around in circles when the code quality is bad enough, but LLM's are also getting exceedingly better at catching that and writing code that's good. We're all in a different phase of the collective grieving process, some are still in denial, I would put you in the bargaining phase judging from the comment.

▲

cstever 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Better code allows you to write new features with less risk to disrupting your current features.

Software design and architecture is about creating a system that can be built well, run well, and modify well.

If you just throw things together without thought you get an unmaintainable mess.