Second page & I'm already totally in disagreement. Its not the object-oriented-ness of the books first counter-example that's confusing, its the use of a monstr

Second page & I'm already totally in disagreement. Its not the object-oriented-ness of the books first counter-example that's confusing, its the use of a monstrous, confusing expression. And the functional "contrasting" example has a similarly inscrutable expression. How is that better? And part of their "improvement" to the example is to transform the expression mathematically, so now it has almost no relation to the original intent. Again, its not at all clear how this is better, or if it is, how its harder to do in the OO program. The ideas behind functional programming are great, but nearly every example I've seen has these over-extended, inscrutable expressions.