Nice observation. What really matters is the actual thinking about the actual subject. In nearly all math proofs, the writing is closer to that thinking than

Nice observation. What really matters is the actual thinking about the actual subject. In nearly all math proofs, the writing is closer to that thinking than in coding. Or, each sentence in a math proof -- and well written proofs actually are written in sentences -- is closer to the thinking than for the programming language statements in the coding. Or, look at the statements in the coding -- without mnemonic identifier naming, they are close to just gibberish. To get the coding closer to the thinking, that's the documentation in the coding. However the documentation is usually not as precise as the sentences in a math proof or the statements in code. So, maybe we need to do something to get programming closer to the real thinking: For this, maybe try to have what we use in programming to be easier to describe. That is, in a math proof, we have numbers, sets, vectors, functions, etc. and at each point in the proof see clearly what these mean. In programming we have variables, arrays, structures, IF statements, loops, subroutines, and without documentation or careful reading don't see clearly what these mean. Once I tried: I wrote some subroutines for sorting, permutations, etc. and tried to have clear properties for the operations the code die, properties that could reason about. Then for some uses of these subroutines, could do some logical reasoning much like in algebra in math. I didn't go very far with that idea!