I don't disagree with what you've said, but I'd like to redirect. I don't think there is a general expectation that programmers or software engineers should app

I don't disagree with what you've said, but I'd like to redirect. I don't think there is a general expectation that programmers or software engineers should approach writing software primarily from a mathematical perspective. If for a given input one generates the expected output then you've written good code (over generalization). So, when I sit down to extend a library with a bit of new functionality, I'm generally not going to also go through the process of learning a new language or making changes to the language I already know. I'm going to express this new functionality using my existing tools. The library is being extended, not the language. Which is why I find the other comment's mention of Racket to be interesting. I've always found it weird that the grammar, syntax, notation, etc of various different maths are not better represented in programming languages. Software is after all, theoretically, infinitely flexible. But most new code is written using the same tricks as old code. Compare this with mathematics. When you switch from linear algebra to calculus you're expressing it all on the chalk board in completely different terms. You don't write calculus in the language of linear algebra. (Yeah, I know many ideas can be expressed / optimized using it, I'm speaking of how does one achieve the greatest level of mental ergonomics when thinking about or expressing an idea. Maybe call it speaking native Calculus.) Different symbols. Different layouts. It all facilitates a different thinking about different ideas. This is clearly where LaTeX, Mathematica, SageMath, and others come in. But if we're talking about Python and R libraries, well that is no where near as natural. Programming is taught just fine for those wanting to program. Maybe mathematicians need to put more effort into leveraging the tool we call software into building out tools, languages, libraries, and human/computer interfaces for the activity we call mathematics. Or not. We're probably at the state where we are at because to some extent it gets the job done. With maths and software being so important to our future, though, I personally feel that improving the ergonomics of tools used for computational sciences would pay hefty dividends.