> The problem is that the toplevel of a module is full of functions at various levels of granularity. Exactly--this is what I was hinting at with "rules of fun

> The problem is that the toplevel of a module is full of functions at various levels of granularity. Exactly--this is what I was hinting at with "rules of function encapsulation." I took a course on LISP in college (apropos of nothing, it featured a lab called, "Isn't this just a one credit course?") in which it seemed like the LISP Way was to use helper functions. It's always felt like something was missing in my ability to "translate" between paradigms because this rubs me the wrong way (although as I went through some examples I realized I do this with some regularity in other languages--but it doesn't "feel" as bad). In retrospect probably part of the problem was that we ALGOL-adjacent undergrads didn't have the scaffolding to understand more generic approaches like fold and cousins. It was a different way of thinking. I like the idea of literate programming as a potential solution, especially as it can be used to guide newbies through the code and identify areas where idioms are much different between one's existing paradigms and that of the codebase.