The code examples for the TPR undecidability series were intended as thought problems. Typically they were meant to fail in thought-provoking ways, ways that were usually unexpected. Truly not the kind of code you'd like to maintain.

In one of my TPR drafts, I said that, if you read my code without understanding its objective, you'd think the proof was that I have no idea how to write code. I think that remark wound up on the cutting room floor.

Most people reading this site regularly understand that. Yet even I find it surprising how many other people skimmed your article and came away with a very, very different misunderstanding of the implications in practice.