It's a matter of expectations. I believe expectations are extremely important when releasing anything creative, be it code or art or writing.
You might release something as a side project of a hobby, but people will become angry with you if it doesn't do what's advertised. This is significantly amplified if you go out of your way to tell people the project exists, in the hopes of it becoming popular and used. It can't become popular if it isn't good enough. That's the same for many different disciplines and various subjective standards of "good." In the case of software correctness is often stressed, unless it's generative art or something. So by marketing something in the hopes of it becoming popular you obligate yourself to getting it to the point where it can become popular.
So it's about not looking arrogant by saying something is true about a project when it isn't.
The problem isn't as simple as "don't mind if it's bad." Your library could end up being used in hundreds of projects. People want continued maintenance in this case. They might start filing issues against your project because of unforseen downstream bugs. But you might not feel like maintaining it anymore. Motivations change. But you'd have to be careful if you choose to hand off maintenance, because this can happen: https://github.com/dominictarr/event-stream/issues/116
So it isn't just a case of whether or not the code itself is bad. It's also about how you market the code to others. Ward people away if it's not production-ready. Sometimes undersell and never oversell. Remove any reason for people's expectations to be out of sync with the actual quality. In the case of event-stream the old maintainer became relied upon and then made the incorrect decision of letting an untrustworthy person have access to the code.
And also make clear your motivations. The creator of uBlock Origin states he might get bored of the project and move on. Give yourself an escape hatch like this so you can excuse yourself if you believe you really can't find yourself with the will to keep working on it in the future.
As long as those expectations are very clear to anyone who uses your code, then it is okay for public code to be bad.
You might release something as a side project of a hobby, but people will become angry with you if it doesn't do what's advertised. This is significantly amplified if you go out of your way to tell people the project exists, in the hopes of it becoming popular and used. It can't become popular if it isn't good enough. That's the same for many different disciplines and various subjective standards of "good." In the case of software correctness is often stressed, unless it's generative art or something. So by marketing something in the hopes of it becoming popular you obligate yourself to getting it to the point where it can become popular.
So it's about not looking arrogant by saying something is true about a project when it isn't.
The problem isn't as simple as "don't mind if it's bad." Your library could end up being used in hundreds of projects. People want continued maintenance in this case. They might start filing issues against your project because of unforseen downstream bugs. But you might not feel like maintaining it anymore. Motivations change. But you'd have to be careful if you choose to hand off maintenance, because this can happen: https://github.com/dominictarr/event-stream/issues/116
So it isn't just a case of whether or not the code itself is bad. It's also about how you market the code to others. Ward people away if it's not production-ready. Sometimes undersell and never oversell. Remove any reason for people's expectations to be out of sync with the actual quality. In the case of event-stream the old maintainer became relied upon and then made the incorrect decision of letting an untrustworthy person have access to the code.
And also make clear your motivations. The creator of uBlock Origin states he might get bored of the project and move on. Give yourself an escape hatch like this so you can excuse yourself if you believe you really can't find yourself with the will to keep working on it in the future.
As long as those expectations are very clear to anyone who uses your code, then it is okay for public code to be bad.