As a Ruby developer, I can't stand this style either. People ought to be aware that to many of us this does indeed also screams "beginner". It shows people slav

As a Ruby developer, I can't stand this style either. People ought to be aware that to many of us this does indeed also screams "beginner". It shows people slavishly following advice they don't understand. I kinda like the Clean Code advice of small functions/methods, but they should pack a punch, not just encapsulate barely more than their own name. E.g. here's a single-line method from the Window class of my Ruby X11 window manager: def type = (@type ||= get_property(:_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE, :atom)&.value.to_i) This does one thing: It queries the X server for the _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE atom attached to this window, and if a value is returned, it ensures the result is an integer (which will be 0 if what is returned is nil or somehow can't be parsed into an int, which would mean someone has been very naughty but defaulting to 0 is fine). It then ensures the value is memoised in `@type` (not doing more error checking here is fine, because failing is worse than defaulting to not knowing the window type, as we have no guarantee it's set in the first place) Tiny functions like that are fine, because they encapsulate a sufficient amount of non-obvious logic in a very concise result. Being able to write `my_window.type` without caring about that logic is great. Trying to reduce your methods to compact little methods is great when it makes you write little functions that tells you a lot. Unfortunately - and so I agree with your reaction to Clean Code - adhering to the rest of the Clean Code advice won't leave you with a bunch of little methods that pack a punch and remove a bunch of complexity, but a bunch of little methods that each encapsulate barely more than their method names worth of complexity.