> how language books are more recommended than works that intend to be foundational (like TAOCP or SWEBOK, disclaimer, I've read neither of them). I have read

> how language books are more recommended than works that intend to be foundational (like TAOCP or SWEBOK, disclaimer, I've read neither of them). I have read some of the "foundational" works, at least well enough to know roughly what's in them. But I've only had the privilege of applying TAOCP a couple of times in my career. Similarly for other techniques from calculus to dynamic programming algorithms. 99% of the time, I try to focus on the simple solution, one that fits the business needs closely. A few times a year, I encounter a situation where a small amount of cleverness (or deeper theory) has a big payoff for the business. Then I indulge myself carefully. And in those cases where cleverness is actually a win, simplicity becomes even more important. If I had to make an analogy, programming is a bit like being a fine woodworker with a limited budget. You want to solve the problem, with quality work, at a reasonable price. Finding the right balance can be extremely satisfying, and it can help an organization achieve ambitious goals.