> Have you ever seen some sheet music, a schematic, or an equation and thought it would be more clearly expressed as a paragraph of English text? Those are mean

> Have you ever seen some sheet music, a schematic, or an equation and thought it would be more clearly expressed as a paragraph of English text? Those are meant to be read by humans too. Every subject that invented each of these formats would disagree with you except for maybe sheet music (but we still use natural language heavily in music education). Do we learn how to interpret schematics, equations, and so on simply by interacting with them directly? It's possible but rare. These formats are consumed by humans, but they are definitely not native to us. To some degree written text isn't either, but it's much closer to speaking than any of these formats is. I can understand your second point, but also it can be done in better ways than the two examples we were forced to start with. I'm not saying we do/don't have to abstract everything. But if we just want "names" or to know which arguments are what in a one line piece of code a comment is perfectly fine. Obviously as complexity grows we want more of what you are saying, but so far all we were dealing with is essentially a list of three values. And for that I just think two extra classes is too much. Maybe I'm arbitrarily being a minimalist, it's subjective. If I had it my way java lambdas would be better and all of this would look so much nicer :)