Interesting. I agree that FP does have a bit too much fun with code golf, but I found the code examples in the article to be very clearly structured, readable,

Interesting. I agree that FP does have a bit too much fun with code golf, but I found the code examples in the article to be very clearly structured, readable, and not at all terse. Is it possible that your perception of a lack of structure is down to a lack of familiarity with the syntax and idioms in ML-style languages? I could see where perhaps not knowing what parts of the code are syntactic and what parts are stylistic causes it all to fade to gray. I've noticed a phenomenon along these lines when people are learning lisp: non-lispers and lisp learners tend to see nothing but parenthesis, because that's the most visually distinctive feature of lisp code compared to other syntaxes. More experienced lisp programmers, on the other hand, have a tendency to just tune them out. In well-formatted code, the parens themselves have very low information density, so you don't necessarily get a lot of value out of scrutinizing them.