One can do deliberate practice for writing prose (or poetry). The difference between a golf swing and a chunk of code is that, as you pointed out, there is a hi

One can do deliberate practice for writing prose (or poetry). The difference between a golf swing and a chunk of code is that, as you pointed out, there is a history of pedagogy such that many agree upon what makes a swing "good". But then many disagree on what makes it great. Or rather, depending on the coach, they emphasize different aspects to be tweaked and amplified. Could we not do that with code? I think fluency for basics could be emphasized at first, so the thinking could be put elsewhere sooner. This could change how students are taught at bootcamps, for example. The current bootcamp model is virtually devoid of any strategy with respect to pedagogy. They like to reference "the firehose" method, borrowing from MIT and Stanford. But they are teaching basics. Basics are deliberate practice developed skill sets. Firehose is just another way to say "we don't yet know how to teach basics but we like to overwhelm students and pretend it is some kind of teaching philosophy" . Granted, someone needs to address the issues you raise, but when they do, pedagogy might emerge. funny to contemplate how behind chess pedagogy code pedagogy is though.