Apologies, I didn't proofread my comment. The point I'm trying to make is that for certain technical concepts (mathematics, programming, etc.), it's not the te

Apologies, I didn't proofread my comment. The point I'm trying to make is that for certain technical concepts (mathematics, programming, etc.), it's not the technical detail that must be remembered. Sure, you forget exactly the syntactical details of implementation, but you do remember (assuming you understood it at the start): 1 - How do I traverse the tree? 2 - Is there any ordering required among the nodes so that my traversal is 'correct'? 3 - How do I maintain such an ordering and establish correctness after my new node is added? 4 - Can I make any improvements so that locating the position of the to-be-added node doesn't take forever? You don't begin to touch on these higher level "computationally minded" ideas until you can understand the primitive action of adding a node. And once you've grasped it, you forget the primitive details, only the essential concept remains. The author seems to suggest that the next generation doesn't need to make an attempt to understand the fundamentals. I argue that unless you're a genius, you need to first add a node to a binary tree before labeling yourself a computational thinker.