My favourite is when you're a solopreneur working in your own repos and still asking yourself "who wrote this shit?!"
Then I realized I wrote the comment. I didn't address the <niche> things because I was looking for it then and I'm stilling looking for it.
Let's submit ideas! I'll start
He wanted to learn about using Machine Learning to predict how often his pet dog would need to go to the bathroom
(1) Niche book writing software (2) Dumbphone hacking
In the end I think it's actually kind of fun to look back through the code though, and think "surely I should have known about X back then... Why didn't I just do that instead."
And, to my surprise, it was not _that_ bad.
Sure, it was full of naively implemented stuff that could have been implemented way better. But, even a decade and a half after, it was pretty clear to read, and it was decently organized.
And, in some ways, I preferred this code to the one I'm writing professionally. I was honestly prouder of myself as a teen than myself as a professional programmer.
The difference, I think, is that I had a clear idea of what I wanted to achieve for this project to be considered as definitely finished. Since I started working on code (for money) I've always been working on never ending projects. This industry (and me, as a professional) is obsessed in writing code for long term maintenance and evolution instead of effectively finishing products.
So, to get back on topic, I'm not sure you really write better code with time. I mean, yes, you totally do, but it's not as important as learning how to code for others to be able to understand and modify it with constraints you can't even imagine.
And I saw a lot of people writing super nice open source side project and then, when you work with them on some professional level, well, they still write the same shitty code as everyone else.
Like when you learn a natural language's vocabulary, but you still need to figure what conjunctions of words are not intelligible or natural phrases to fluent speakers. Phrases that have ambiguous meanings or otherwise generate confusion.
I think there's a comparable notion of fluency in programming that goes what most people mean they say they're fluent in a programming language.
Do you only feel this motivation when you look back at old projects? Perhaps the improvement could be in organization (code-level or otherwise) such that you do not feel lost or confused looking at your old stuff.
If you are actually improving then there should be some good in there (you got better from two years ago right?). If you can't identify that good, then either you are just chasing fashion (that perfectly good construct from two years ago is now out of fashion so it is "bad"), or you haven't improved your ability to tell good code from bad and just calling it bad because you are unfamiliar with it.
If you want to actually get better at code then you should do a real review of the code you wrote a year ago. Where did bugs occur in the code you wrote? Is there something that you could have done to make it less error prone? Is there code you wrote that is easy to understand? What design choices can you make so that more code ends up in the good code camp? How were the bugs detected? Can I integrate that in to what I do for testing? Then actively practice moving your code in the good direction and away from the bad.
Anything less is chasing fashion and using familiarity as a good and unfamiliarity as bad. "As is" it is a pithy blog post for Coding Horror, but won't get you there. Pursuing greatness requires directed improvement
EDIT: Actually I feel like an aging chess GM -- better than younger at strategy, worse than younger at tactics.
I would go as far as to say that it's a negative signal, because instead of improving code quality you are just changing things that don't really matter.
I had an issue, last week, where a bug was caused by an omission I left from an SDK that I wrote, maybe, eight years ago. It was a simple thing. I didn't add a "RefCon" to a server interaction, so I couldn't attach a reference context to a callback. This is a classic pattern, that I've used for decades, and I have no idea why the hell I didn't add it to this SDK. I suspect that it might be that the SDK was for a fairly wide audience, and I probably thought that they wouldn't understand it. So here I am, paying the price for underestimating my user base (which, so far, is Yours Truly).
Anyway, the "fix" was to implement a semaphore, and treat the call as blocking, which is awful. I really need to go back and change the SDK, but that's a fairly fundamental change, that I can't afford, right now (the SDK tofu is rock-hard).
Such is the life of a shipping developer...
The trick is to give them easily defuseable bad ammunition when they "sneak" around to collect. If you disassemble all their arguments and have emails were they were informed, you can trash them thoroughly.
Unpayed though. Cause even good arguments cant help broke little shops.
And if you don't consult a lawyer to prepare for small claims court, you stand a decent chance to be blindsided by that or something else.
If the initial action costs nothing, you have nothing to lose, but they will almost certainly lose something. If you do nothing it will cost you nothing also, but you have no chance of gaining anything at all.
They don't need to hire a lawyer to determine it, the junior paralegal in the in-house counsel’s office with a checklist will do just fine, since all the information needed to make the determination will be on the papers they are served with.
> If the initial action costs nothing, you have nothing to lose
Not at all true; one of the other standard techniques for getting things out of small claims court is for the defendant to find anything about the interaction in question that they could countersue for that would raise the amount in controversy above the small claims limit (since the requirement for linked counterclaims to be handled in the same case and the small claims limit interact to requiring moving the case when this happens), even if it is something that they wouldn't sue over otherwise.