I've written several 100ks LOC/year at points in my career- but exclusively when working on new projects. When maintaining projects I might go a week at a time without writing any code solo, or I might spend a week trying to _reduce_ LOC.
It has become taboo to say things like "This code is too tightly coupled", "You don't need to add an external dependency for that", "The inputs to those methods are too complicated; your components are micromanaging each others' state", "You're violating separation of concerns", "The cyclomatic complexity of this code is too high; you could simplify all your if-else statements"... When it's not my company, it's impossible to dismiss code when it works right now, even though it is likely to break later.
Warning: it looks like you’re trying to pack too much crap into a single PR and your peers are unlikely to understand what they are accepting.
"This change is hard for me to read and understand"
or
"This is a large PR, and it may be difficult for me to schedule time to review it. Can it be split up into a series?"
I also configure linters and code quality tools to automatically flag some of the more egregious problems.
I'm 33 but I feel like I already have to make an effort to avoid the dinosaur label. I disagree with a lot of modern tech trends but I simply cannot express my view about them even though I could explain the problems very clearly and logically and can provide far better and simpler alternatives. Unfortunately, hype does not yield to reasoning... And sometimes, you're too far into the tech debt and it doesn't make financial sense to rewrite.
My current reality is that I'm a 33 year old working with 20 year olds who think they're geniuses who are going to take over the world in 5 years; from that viewpoint, I'm essentially a failed engineer because I didn't build a Facebook, Uber or AirBnB even though I had 10 years to do it.
Believe it or not, I consulted at one place where the manager decided I was the problem because I was consistently assessing problem code and team processes in similar ways. She asserted that "everyone else understood", even when they plainly didn't understand but where just going through the motions.
Said manager had a number of other issues as well. Worst gig I can recall having in the last couple of decades.
Edit to add: in 1:1s with the manager I was more direct. About the best I can say about that is "at least I tried".
The last greenfield project which I managed from scratch, we didn't have this problem because all developers shared the same mental model of what we were building before we wrote any code. We had a lot of discussions beforehand to get to this shared understanding. There was literally not a single PR which surprised me throughout the entire project and I'm sure none of my PRs were a surprise to any of my team mates either. There was plenty of disagreement throughout but it was always fully resolved through discussion before we started coding each major feature.
I've found that kind of feedback to be useful actually. And when giving similar feedback it is received better with a small change in wording to make it more about the code and not the person. Even if that is the intention the wording does matter. For example:
"An external dependency isn't needed here, try implementing with XYZ instead." "Split this function into x and y for better separation of concerns"
Removing the "you" removes some resistance to receiving the message .
I’ve become fond of mostly asking questions.
I wonder if we could avoid this dependency? Maybe [idea] would work?
Can you see a way to separate the X concern into a module?
Can we split this function up a bit so the nesting won’t be so deep? Would this loop body make a good standalone function?
Without going into specifics, there was a case where I reviewed a PR, asking "this isn't usually how people do file operations, are you sure this is really fine?" To address my concerns, they even wrote a specific test program to "prove" that there weren't any problems with the code. I reluctantly approved the PR since I couldn't just ask them to rewrite the whole patch due to just a hunch.
Lo and behold, after a kernel upgrade and file system change, that weird piece of code caused a multi-week panic for the whole team. The extra funny thing is that the test program above made it trivial to confirm and reproduce the issue once we identified this was the cause.