Why do you say this? I've seen the opposite.
I can't submit untested code or code that doesn't have "readability" approval. It's certainly not perfect but testability is a huge part of any project I've worked on.
Also, tested code is not the same thing as “testable” code. Mock and monkey patching can very easily give you 100% coverage of untestable code with garbage tests.
This doesn't mean it leads to complex code.
The Google cpp style guide[0], for example, tries at length to keep code simple and stresses that even in C++, you should prefer simple things unless the performance benefits (of, say, nontrivial ownership) are provably necessary:
> The performance costs of value semantics are often overestimated, so the performance benefits of ownership transfer might not justify the readability and complexity costs.
> This doesn't mean it leads to complex code.
It does mean that it’s a completely subjective thing coming from other people in the very same culture of which I’m being critical. It’s like someone claiming the Chinese government isn’t authoritarian because Chinese citizens have slapped on the “non-authoritarian” label.