>
The problem is that after a half a century, software engineering discipline has been unable to agree on global conventions and standards.It can't, and it won't, as long as we insist on always working directly on the "single source of truth", and representing it as plaintext code. It's just not sufficient to comprehensibly represent all concerns its consumers have at the same time. We're stuck in endless fights about what is cleaner or more readable or more maintainable way of abstracting / passing errors / sizing functions / naming variables... and so on, because the industry still misses the actual answer: it depends on what you're doing at the moment. There is no one best representation, one best function size. In fact, one form may be ideal for you now, and the opposite of it may be ideal for you five minutes later, as you switch from e.g. understanding the module to debugging a specific issue in it.
We've saturated the expressive capability of our programming paradigm. We're sliding back and forth along the Pareto frontier, like a drunkard leaning against a wall, trying to find their way back to a pub without falling over. No, inventing even more mathematically complex category of magic monads won't help, that's just repackaging complexity to reach a different point on the Pareto frontier.
Hint: in construction, there is never one blueprint everyone works with. Try to fit all information about geometry, structural properties, material properties, interior arrangement, plumbing, electricity, insulation, HVAC, geological conditions, hydrological conditions, and tax conditions onto a single flat image, and... you'll get a good approximation of what source code looks like in programming as it is today.