I agree with the identification of these two attitudes, but I'd like to add they they are not mutually exclusive, or that one is strictly always more correct th

I agree with the identification of these two attitudes, but I'd like to add they they are not mutually exclusive, or that one is strictly always more correct than the other. In a slightly different light, I'd call the first attitude "academic" and the second "practical", without any particular positive or negative attributes. They are both valuable and appropriate at the right times. This article is in the context of learning, and I do recall interactions with learners of both attitudes. Those embedded too strictly in either generally did worse than those who would think academically about a problem, approach it practically and evaluate it academically. We have the strict "documentation tells this, and so therefore my code is correct" kind of adherence to the academic attitude, but when they lack the experience needed to fully understand the documentation, and are too rigid to do experimentation to validate their understanding.. We have the strict "but it works when I do that" but avoids referring to the documentation to try and understand WHY it works when you do that, and so miss out on opportunity to learn how to think up that solution without brute force. Middle ground is way to go.. Read documentation, experiment to validate, analyze resulting solution to gain deeper understanding.