[vidarh]

> Code is notation, you can’t write code for the sake of writing code.

Of course you can.

> You have a problem and you instruct the computer how to do it.

And sometimes that problem is not the point. Just like sometimes I write for the joy of writing, not because I particularly care about a reader or the meaning of the output.

> The computers does not really care about what programming language you’re using and the name of your variables and other indentifiers. People do. You can have correct code (decompiled assembly or minified JavaScript) and no one will wants to collaborate on that.

This has no relation whatsoever to the sentence you quoted.

[skydhash]

> This has no relation whatsoever to the sentence you quoted.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I wanted to convey is that the use of programming languages, paradigms, patterns, and other software engineering principles is related to the human side of programming.

You can solve a problem correctly, but with the resulting code being hard to parse. Or you can write readable code but with bugs. And almost everyone prefers the latter.

So badly written means incomprehensible code, mostly due to the size of it in the case of Agents. It’s all right if no one cares about the code. But if you expect someone to review it, changeset that even the author don’t understand is slop.

[vidarh]

So again, this presumes that the result must be incomprehensible. That is not at all my experience. It may become incomprehensible if you let it, just as is the case with human developers. It won't be if you enforce reviews, and your harness demands cleanups and sets clear standards.