To me the general idea of splitting a complex problem into a series of less complex problems is good. However the example used seems trivial and the solution is

To me the general idea of splitting a complex problem into a series of less complex problems is good. However the example used seems trivial and the solution is worse than the problem: > 1. It is pretty long, sixteen lines, multiple parts separated by empty lines. I wouldn't call 16 lines "long". It contains empty lines for easier reading. Well done, not actually a problem. But it lacks any comments on why the assertions have to be made. > 2. It does several things. It gets an item by name, validates parameters, and it implements the logic of vending an item. These are the things that naturally belong together. Separating validation from logic is not a very good idea. The logic requires the specific assertions in the validation part. They belong together. > 3. It has several abstraction levels. The high-level vending process is hidden among the finer-level details like Boolean checks, usage of specific constants, math operations, etc. In the single function implementation it's actually not hidden because it's all in one function. Use some comments to structure your function. --- In my opinion separating this function into multiple functions would only make sense if these parts are used multiple times AND if they are commented well on why they need to act this way.