I agree with OP's distinction. However just because you see software as a means to an ends, doesn't mean that you don't feel that quality and craft are unimportant. You can see the "craft" oriented folks as being obsessed with the form of their software. A "craft" oriented engineer might rewrite a perfectly functioning piece of software to make it what they perceive to be "easier to reason about". I consider most software rewrites to be borderline malpractice.

I think the kind of surface level rewrites that people rag on are pretty rare, at least in my experience. Realistically code that's impossible to understand, underdocumented, and lacking in proper abstractions is also deficient code. If you've ensured that the code is "good enough", you will likely hit a bug or feature request that is hindered by the poor structure and understanding of the code.

It's totally fine to say "the code works, that area is stable, let's not mess with that code". I make those kinds of tradeoffs on a near daily basis. But let's be real, "perfectly functioning code" is an ill defined, moving target. What looks like perfectly functioning code to a sibling team or a PM, could be a massive liability to someone who actually knows the code.

But then again I'm writing OS and performance critical code. A 1 in 1 million bug is easier to ignore in a throwaway log viewer website.

The most productive teams I've seen (eg at Jane Street) rewrite things all the time, and still move faster than any "normal" teams I've seen. I remember when I interned there over a decade ago, they were already on like the seventh? version of their incremental computing framework, and were building a new build system. But they were also incredibly effective at getting things done both on a per-engineer basis and in terms of making money.

With bad code it’s often almost impossible to improve the functionality or correctness or performance of the code, without first rewriting parts of it.