>Good people produce good code, or "timeless" code, bad people write "bad" code (means it's a tech debt).

That's some really reductive moralism that does not take into account any external factors on why the bad code was written.

Do you really think you're a good person because you're code is good?

> Do you really think you're a good person because you're code is good?

That’s a bit of putting the cart before the horse… what if they think they’re a bad person because their code is bad?

Meh. Such moral absolutism leaves no room for fate. I had a colleague once whose wife was dying of cancer and he understandably had severe trouble focusing on his work. That does not make him "bad people" even though his code wasn't perfect all of the time.

Good people do make good code, they aren't spared the struggle of life. His attempt at working would be seen as good. He didn't experience a moral failing, for failing to produce commercially viable code.

If I write some ugly code to get prod back online ASAP, did I immediately become a bad person? Or do I only become a bad person after some number of weeks passes and I haven't refactored it to clean it up yet?

That's in Christianity too, a good tree produces good fruits. Judge a person by their fruits, ect.

Programming requires more conscious specificity than faith wants to indulge in, so we need more than it.

If tech debt is always bad then it seems like a bad indirect analogy. Taking on money debt is often a sound decision.