[nomel]

I agree.

I think the only time quality might be objective is when there's a planned "ought", like a required feature that needs to be implemented later.

From that perspective, the "quality" could be measured in how easy it will be to implement that, in a "total effort" sense (subjective I suppose), where "low quality" might require a whole rewrite of big sections, where "high quality" would have the required stuffs in place (maybe abstractions, or maybe even placed where spaghetti would fit nicely) to make it "easy".

[bulatb]

Yay! I've argued this a few times here and it's been, uh, perceived as low quality.

I think "objective quality" can always be re-framed in terms of fitness. "Quality" is just not anything the fitness function measures, so it can't.

It's hard to really make the case because of course there's something real that people mean, colloquially, and it's totally valid. Lots of things objectively have properties most people would agree show quality. That's where it is, it's right there!

But all those properties can be described without the use of "quality" by just reciting every fact about the thing. The only thing that will be left, the only thing you can't communicate that way, is what the person thinks about those facts.

[nomel]

> .. perceived as low quality.

What you're saying requires someone looks past some existing categorizations that they've formed. I suspect you're not as vulnerable to categorization as the usual person, so this probably happens often. ;)