This is not how everyone who writes APL feels about it. It is recognized that it takes quite a while to really internalize how the operators work and compose, though. One advantage of APL stated by Aaron Hsu is that because the code is so small, if you find it confusing, you get in the habit of rewriting it frequently, and at least for him, it gets clearer over time. I have only dabbled myself (Primarily an OCaml and Elixir/Erlang programmer), but what understanding I have about empirical studies of software engineering suggests lines of code is more or less the only consistent predictor of defect count.
APL's syntax and semantics are much different so it has a larger barrier for getting to the level of reading or extending programs written in it, but it's not impossible to reach that level with a bit of practice. I spent a few months doing APL for 2-3 hours a week in the evenings and I was able to develop a reasonable level of competence in it (though not so much I'd drop it on my CV), I can still read it pretty easily now a couple years later and without really touching it since then.
In all seriousness I think writing more code in APL would probably cut down on bugs, but array-oriented languages are so far beyond how most programmers think about programming, and look so obscure, that I don't think there's any hope of them seeing widespread adoption. Most people loathe point-free Haskell, so I can only imagine what they'd think of the APL family.