That's exactly it! It's basic clean coding style where it's better to use meaningful names and sometimes write something in 2 or 3 lines that is more interpret able than to write a perfect one-liner that no one will be able to unpack.
In this regard I almost wish we had a de-facto standard in math of presenting the 'condensed' perfect form of the equation and a more chunkier version.
What I like is that recently I saw some researchers annotating the symbols in their equations [1].
[1] https://twitter.com/sibinmohan/status/1480583840858996743/ph...
How to get from one state to the other is the whole problem.
The terse symbolic language is someone's best attempt to communicate the beautiful simple idea in their head. More than any other discipline, I think, mathematicians write to be understood, to be clear.
Then after much tinkering with the parameters, exploring the limits, plotting graphs, slowly I look at it and recognize what is going on and realise "gosh that is actually really F**ing simple"
I wonder how much of "learning" math is really spent on decoding the representations we are provided, rather than understanding the concept they're meant to represent.