> it's possible to over-simplify things in a way that obfuscates instead of clarifying While this is true, I think it's important to keep in mind that a big be

> it's possible to over-simplify things in a way that obfuscates instead of clarifying While this is true, I think it's important to keep in mind that a big benefit of being able to handle a situation programatically in different ways is that you, as a programmer, are more able to accurately describe intent. For example, I think it's foolish to always catch exceptions instead of checking beforehand (look-before-you-leap). However, being able to do either allows me to more accurately represent the intent of a statement. Blindly following rules is almost always sure to lead to poor decisions. If I'm retrieving an element from an array and I know that for the majority of possible application states there will be an element there, I can just access it, and handle an exception (because it's an "exceptional" case). However if I'm expecting that it could go either way in typical circumstances, then I might more explicitly check the index in the array to illustrate my intent that yes, there are two distinct paths here and that is how the program's control flows naturally. Of course all of these things are only worthwhile if the reader can see and interpret them as purposeful decisions rather than coincidence. Conveying that is something else entirely.