One thing that's nice about getting this via GitHub is, at least the rude comment maybe gets a couple of :thumbsdown:s on it, which can help you brush it off.
The way I see it, writing working code is more important than writing "good" code most of the time. That's not to say I don't try and follow some degree of standards. My code usually contains a crap load of tests, definitely tries to follow the language idioms, etc. But I just don't try and get clever where I don't need to. Sometimes this means code isn't well optimised - however I can pick that up in a subsequent bug fix if that particular feature proves useful / popular.
Thus I have had one or two people comment before saying "it's not very well coded" and I usually just reply "it's very much living project where some code is working POC and other code has been rewritten and improved (sometimes many times over). However if you have any specific concerns or tips, I'd welcome them. Or better yet, chuck me a PR"
Great artists are never recognised in their time ;-) But seriously, I think you can think of it the same way. Would an artist ever make a new work if they didn't think they could make something better than their previous work? So there will always be truth about the deficiencies in a work. But can the reviewer understand the good parts?
Sometimes I get great pleasure in pieces of code that I wrote that I think nobody else will appreciate. It's kind of like an inside joke. If someone can't see it, it's not really unexpected -- perhaps more surprising if someone does see it.
I try to enjoy the fact that someone read my code. The hate mail is just the proof :-D