>How many programmers are reading papers with any routineness in their field? Non-zero, but nowhere near 100%. Or even 50%. Yea it's gotta be pretty low. I gue

>How many programmers are reading papers with any routineness in their field? Non-zero, but nowhere near 100%. Or even 50%. Yea it's gotta be pretty low. I guess that's a sort of engineering by intuition that, if it lead to a working design, could then be explained with scientific theory. Still, I would expect a licensed engineer not to sign off on a design if they don't understand it theoretically because they are legally liable in a similar way to doctors.