I think your type is the exception rather than the rule. I have a background in computer science and I love the beauty of correctness. But at work, I constantly

I think your type is the exception rather than the rule. I have a background in computer science and I love the beauty of correctness. But at work, I constantly find myself struggling to get my fellow developers (even with CS degrees) to think in terms of mathematical correctness instead of just, "how can I get this program to work today?" For example, can we define our methods to use the most general base type that is appropriate, or an interface that is yet more strict, and guard clauses that, the combination of which, create a method that mathematically cannot fail except for upstream, downstream, or machine level (e.g. out of memory) issues. If we do so consistently, then we have rock solid methods that we can trust. But usually I find that my co-workers don't want to think in terms of these sort of rock solid contracts. And instead they just want to get the program to work today; To get their scrum story done. Inevitably they keep going back to these methods to fix a scenario they didn't anticipate. It's such a colossal, collective waste of time. I don't think everyone has to study computer science, but an appreciation that programming can be more mathematically precise than many programmers try to make it would benefit the industry. It would drastically reduce bug counts, improve the ability to reason on code, and increase developer productivity.