But see, the difference is something that is confusing to a beginner is quite a bit different than something that is just overwhelmingly complex for anyone. An

But see, the difference is something that is confusing to a beginner is quite a bit different than something that is just overwhelmingly complex for anyone. And "simple" code has far more risk of side effect than well architected code, which is quite the opposite of what you assert. Getting to the bottom of what you need to change is complicated if you're new, but once you get past the learning curve it's straightforward. On the other hand, a "simple" code structure can becoming a steaming pile of garbage if you want to make any real changes to it. To be very clear, I'm talking using something like composition instead of making a big file with cyclomatic complexity -- not arguing for some of those other things, which in all honesty I'm not completely familiar with. Really just arguing that sometimes this stuff seems impossible and dumb when you're starting out, but easy and intuitive when you learn more. > I pity the guy trying to fix some old legacy code base, while also trying to figure out what the hell a combinator is That goes to my other point: it's wrapped up in excessively formal language, but the actual ideas are simple. I think they might be for instance just advocating the use of functional programming, and juniors use Javascript lambdas every single day without knowing what the hell a combinator is.