Bad code written by software engineers is worse than bad code written by scientists, as the former takes more effort to fix than the latter (given the pathologies mentioned). It's naturally preferable to not have bad code, but it that choice was actually on the table, then I don't know who would choose the bad code.
As for hiring software devs, that's not going to change (in general, there are places where software devs write code used by scientists, but rarely are these codes themselves pushing research boundaries, it's code on top it that does) absent significant changes in funding structure and rules (which are typically a government/public service concern, and not up to researchers).
> as the former takes more effort to fix than the latter
Disagree. Well, maybe still acceptable if the software is small / limited to a single paper. Having worked on a code base the people writing it learned programming on that job, guessing their intention is like archeology. And each iteration tended to add some complicated interdependence. Or like when int errorCode came from other, overlapping error ranges.
A part of the "new" code base is exactly as described by TFA. Including most interfaces having only one implementation. But while annoying, I am more able to work on it without things breaking...
It's just comparing two different things: the average "bad code from scientist" is for simple tasks, whereas the average "bad code from software engineer" is for a complicated task (otherwise you shouldn't pay the software engineer in the first place).
My point about the rant being counter-productive is that the solution is to learn how to do the task better, not to blame people. Maybe the best way to do a task with a very low budget is to not do it at all.
As for hiring software devs, that's not going to change (in general, there are places where software devs write code used by scientists, but rarely are these codes themselves pushing research boundaries, it's code on top it that does) absent significant changes in funding structure and rules (which are typically a government/public service concern, and not up to researchers).