> Good code is so ergonomic that you almost don’t need to read it; you just use it. This is a poor world view and is what leads to unwieldy systems with weird

> Good code is so ergonomic that you almost don’t need to read it; you just use it. This is a poor world view and is what leads to unwieldy systems with weird interactions that are buggy in just the right situation. I understand what the author was trying to express, but the sentiment is poorly expressed. They conflate "used"/"run" with "read" several times. IME, good code is readable code, but not all readable code is good code. Clever code is normally much less readable. At the end of the day, the lifecycle of any code you produce is such that it will generally be maintained far beyond the time is was written. To me that means you need to write code with maintainability in mind. If you cannot read and understand the code, how can you expect the effectively maintain the code? Simply having a clearly defined function name, arguments, and documentation doesn't mean you can ignore making the innards maintainable. Finally, as others have pointed out, you want your colleagues reading good code so they can learn to write better code. No matter your level, you should never stop learning to be a better developer.