The example code would be less distracting if it at least attempted to stick to the pizza metaphor in a meaningful way and weren't subpar Go code. `prepare` is

The example code would be less distracting if it at least attempted to stick to the pizza metaphor in a meaningful way and weren't subpar Go code. `prepare` is a horrible name for a function. I would expect a seasoned Gopher to call it something like `NewPizzaFromOrder`. I don't see any reason for putting `addToppings` in its own function. If you have to have it, I personally would have made it a method on Pizza something like `func (p *Pizza) WithToppings(topping ...Topping) *Pizza { /* ... */ }`. Real pizza is mutable, so the method mutates the receiver. Why is a new oven instantiated every time you want to bake a pizza? You should start with an oven you already have, then do `oven.Preheat()`, and then call call `oven.Bake(pizza)`. You can take this further by having `oven.Preheat()` return a newtype of Oven which exposes `.Bake()` so that you can't accidentally bake something without preheating the oven first. Maybe elsewhere `Baker` is an interface, and you have a `ToasterOven` implementation that does not require you to preheat before baking because it's just not as important. Without changing the code, I'd also reorder the declarations to be more what you'd expect (so you don't have to jump up and down the page as you scan through functions that call each other). IDK I have to leave now but there are just so, so many ways in which the code is already a deeply horrible example to even start picking apart the "which is more readable" debate.