The depth of programming is following the code down to electricity, like the Ben Eater youtube videos show. What you want that code to do has it's own depths; m

The depth of programming is following the code down to electricity, like the Ben Eater youtube videos show. What you want that code to do has it's own depths; math, ml, ai, games, business ect. It's not like classical art or architecture where the principles closer to all commanding or 'figured out'. Your everyday work is like swimming through code solving problems as you go. Pushing blocks into permanent place never works, they find a way of getting crufty, old and replaced to fit new requirements. I imagine any field that deals with flowing quantities of objects, or fluid-like systems would have structural overlaps with programming. Fields like plumbing, finance, the energy sector, ect. I would describe programming to be at it's very base to be ascribing meaning to quantities of meaningless numbers and building a structure to pipe those numbers around to a qualitative result. Measuring principles in depth here is not that useful, the river of valuable information runs left to right in code. You'll likely restrict how deep and how abstract you go and instead focus on churning out a high quantity of solved problems. It's just not that useful to be thinking in machine code when you're programming in C++, but knowing all the functions of C++ and where it should be ending up is very important.