Your post has many implied dichotomies and correlations that simply aren't true. For example:
I find the quoted section to be an interesting statement because, if true (and it likely is true), it simply reinforces the notion that ugly, pragmatic projects endure and succeed
Not really. It simply shows that bad software is commonplace and often not important enough factor to kill an entire company. It still costs companies a fortune in maintenance, client dissatisfaction and employee turnover rates.
You've seen "way, way more" of that sort because they deliver actual value and end up providing an actual solution for the world
Uh, again, no. Bad code often begets bad UI, confusing process for the users, botched transactions and a never-ending stream of database tweaks and patches. I've seen plenty of projects whose overall value to the company was negative. Problem is, that negative was spread throughout large period of time, whereas a proper update or replacement of the system would be concentrated in a much shorter time span. This is where "debt" analogy works very well. Some code is like that credit card you maxed out, but only have enough money to do minimum payments.
I have created a lot of terrible code in my career, almost always doing greenfield development.
Whether you created horrible code is largely irrelevant. What's important is what is your overall trend. Some developers pull the code quality up over time, and them maintain it at some reasonable level after that. Others slowly turn anything they touch into radioactive waste.
I'll just leave it at this -- despite protestations to the contrary, I would wager that the majority of developers, if not the overwhelming majority of developers, claim to do no wrong when coding. They claim to plan and design and develop with best practices, creating clean, maintainable code.
And those same developers almost universally declare the majority of code they come in contact with to be toxic waste. Terrible code that brings down companies and kills careers (this whole hilarious discussion began with someone lamenting about the code that Notch burdened Mojang with. The code that is the sole reason for that company existing. What a horrible burden).
These claims do not mesh. At all. There is a reality that is profoundly different from what people say.
This reminds me of how some people argue that morality is hard, because everything is relative, while doing thing they themselves clearly do not consider "right".
Aside from a few inexperienced or delusional engineers, most people I've seen in my professional life are cognizant of the quality of code they produce. The main difference is in how they respond to the cases when that quality dips below a certain level.
I find the quoted section to be an interesting statement because, if true (and it likely is true), it simply reinforces the notion that ugly, pragmatic projects endure and succeed
Not really. It simply shows that bad software is commonplace and often not important enough factor to kill an entire company. It still costs companies a fortune in maintenance, client dissatisfaction and employee turnover rates.
You've seen "way, way more" of that sort because they deliver actual value and end up providing an actual solution for the world
Uh, again, no. Bad code often begets bad UI, confusing process for the users, botched transactions and a never-ending stream of database tweaks and patches. I've seen plenty of projects whose overall value to the company was negative. Problem is, that negative was spread throughout large period of time, whereas a proper update or replacement of the system would be concentrated in a much shorter time span. This is where "debt" analogy works very well. Some code is like that credit card you maxed out, but only have enough money to do minimum payments.
I have created a lot of terrible code in my career, almost always doing greenfield development.
Whether you created horrible code is largely irrelevant. What's important is what is your overall trend. Some developers pull the code quality up over time, and them maintain it at some reasonable level after that. Others slowly turn anything they touch into radioactive waste.