Have you ever had the need to read the source code of a tool because it doesn't behave the way it should, and its help and documentation prescribes?
I have been there a couple of times, and how some stuff is handled in these codebases were sad. Sloppy, assumption ridden, or pure, inelegant and fragile hacks.
Even if you're reading a code to modify it, good code is easier to follow and read (point of the junior developer), and as a result, you touch less and less parts of the code to develop it even further.
So yes, Good code is rarely read, or "read less, and in more niche cases".
> Have you ever had the need to read the source code of a tool because it doesn't behave the way it should, and its help and documentation prescribes?
I believe this varies wildly programmer to programmer. I'm often diving into code and reading that when debugging. I've done this with many code bases. It may be debatable if any of them are "good".
I have been there a couple of times, and how some stuff is handled in these codebases were sad. Sloppy, assumption ridden, or pure, inelegant and fragile hacks.
Even if you're reading a code to modify it, good code is easier to follow and read (point of the junior developer), and as a result, you touch less and less parts of the code to develop it even further.
So yes, Good code is rarely read, or "read less, and in more niche cases".