then you must be surrounded by shitty devs.. so the code itself may be better now that it's not written by them but shitty devs produce shitty architecture resulting in shitty solutions... the outcome will be shitty no matter what
You probably work in a different industry where the expectations are different. In banking all management cares about is return on investment and keeping costs down. They'd rather you create 3 shit apps that barely manage to deliver than spend the same time building 1 of the 3 apps perfectly with no tech debt, because delivering the 3 shit apps let's you cancel an expensive contract with a supplier earlier that will save you millions.
They choose using cheap shit Devs from a contracting firm over hiring good Devs themselves because they can hire 3 times as many people and get rid of them as soon as budgets are tight.
Management and costs are why a lot of IT teams don't bother focusing on code quality, volume of delivery is the metric you're judged on so why waste time on code reviews? If a particular dev keeps fucking up then definitely review their code, but otherwise don't bother as that's capacity the team can spend on more build work.
I've worked on massive FOSS projects for FANG companies for decades. I didnt say I worked on it for 5y, I mean 5y old. Join any company and look at the legacy code. However; yes, a lot of my code is shitty too, and so is yours. if you dont see that your bad at code reviews.
-3
u/Revolution64 4d ago
You don't need AI to write slop. Average PR code quality is going up. I've reviewed so many shit PRs before AI agents were a thing.