It’s possible I am misunderstanding you, but think I agree with this. There’s kind of two ideas going on here (in this thread in general), I think. One seems

It’s possible I am misunderstanding you, but think I agree with this. There’s kind of two ideas going on here (in this thread in general), I think. One seems to be of a mindset I’d describe as thinking in math means glomming onto knowing linear algebra. The other seems to be thinking in interconnections, minimalist definitions, and those abstract concepts that exist in math (and all kinds of things) for connecting discrete ideas into composite ideas. One thing that bugs me is code with overly specific semantics, where it reads like that’s the only problem the code could solve. When if it’s broken into concepts and abstraction in the PLANNING stage the code ends up being less verbose and descriptive of the human problem and more useful for a variety of problems. So instead of code to balance a checkbook, I’d write code to add/subtract numbers and input numbers from my checking account. I see a whole lot of code with too much specific semantic meaning. And it ends in practice that we think code in one system is highly specific to that system and minimizes effort to reuse. At least that’s been my experience at work. Ymmv