Well I disagree, but I doubt I'll convince you if you prefer that style :). You're not really making best use of the type system. Here's some of the reasons I'd

Well I disagree, but I doubt I'll convince you if you prefer that style :). You're not really making best use of the type system. Here's some of the reasons I'd prefer modeling this kind of thing with types How can you find all the uses of money throughout your codebase if they're just doubles? They'll be mixed up with all other uses of doubles. What happens when you need to add precision because double is no longer good enough? Not only do you need to find them all but then factor them out to different types. How do you support currencies? How do you know what currency "double total_money" is at the moment? The meaning is lost as soon as you pass it to another function. Even if you are only dealing with USD right now good luck adding currency support in the future if you're using primitives. Yes, you might have to press a key shortcut to look at the definition to see this information, but duplicating it in the variable name everywhere you use it seems barely better than comments. Furthermore, the variable names can be wrong because they're not enforced by the typesystem. The typechecker can enforce for me that I don't pass a negative value or a value in the wrong currency. Variable names don't do any enforcement Primitive obsession[0] also tends to lead to lots of duplication of logic. Multiple functions have tests that check what happens when passed an invalid value, logic that would be in one place with a type definition. [0] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrimitiveObsession http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrimitiveObsession While not really related to the primitive obsession vs domain modelling debate - it's a really bad idea to use floating point numbers for monetary calculations, and from experience I can tell you how hard it is to fix this down the road in an existing codebase processing large amounts of money.