I agree with the importance of the memory layout of data structures, but I read the original article a bit differently from you and the person you are replying

I agree with the importance of the memory layout of data structures, but I read the original article a bit differently from you and the person you are replying to. A common approach to programming is to model the problem, almost to anthropomorphize the components of a system. In this style of programming, the organization of data structures isn't about how to lay out bytes in memory, but about a role needed in the resolution of a problem. I almost think of it as having a bunch of little actors that we want to arrange in a certain way in a scene, shout `.action()`, and have the work be done. This is a style of programming that I was really into just a few years ago, but when I compared myself to other programmers that I really looked up too, I realized that they didn't engage in this type of programming theater. Their code _did_ have types, but it was to group data together, not to tell a story; it was very concrete and practical. And time and time again they produced better programs than I did, often in less time than me, and they avoided questions that would plague me for days (e.g., whose responsibility is it to do X?) So what I understood from the article is to avoid creating types upon types upon types to model the conceptual problem, and rather write code (which certainly includes data structures) that handles the data of the problem.