I don't know anything about YaBB, but I find your rant against it less than convincing. There are a number of modules (mine among them) which have horrible ugly, stupid, repetitive code in them. That doesn't *necessarily* mean that they don't mostly function as they should. Your rant was published almost 3 years ago and YaBB has aparently been a live project in that time ... I dunno if they improved the code you complained about, but they well might have. I also find your argument about using a usenetish approach rather than a web approach to be an example of "coder thinking about a non-coder issue". Yes, sure usenet can do anything web can do better ... technically. But that doesn't mean it's the same experience from the user's viewpoint. Anyway, nothing personal, your rant on your pet peeves just provoked this rant on my pet peeves. :-)
I believe you and DrHyde that the code sucks. I'm glad I don't have to maintain it (maintaining my own bad code is bad enough). I was writing more about what I find useful in a critique of a module. Having some bad code three years ago is different from still having bad code now. Having bad code is (sometimes) different from having dysfunctional code. When I hear someone as experienced as Barbie say they've used the module for a long time, I get a mixed picture. Critiques such as "html embedded throughout the code" tell me I definitely don't want to have to extend or maintain the sucker, but don't tell me whether the thing works or whether it would be useful in specific contexts.