Yeah, but the problem (as you point) is that you can say that navigating is astronomy, or physics or relativity. But you don't call "traveling is relativity!",

Yeah, but the problem (as you point) is that you can say that navigating is astronomy, or physics or relativity. But you don't call "traveling is relativity!", you call it traveling. Math, (classic) physics and relativity are ways to understand it, sure, even describe it, but what is more true than the other: classic physics, relativity, math?. Here the problem is not about understanding the foundation of things, is about not apply to all the levels in the abstraction the same label. When you walk in the part you are NOT doing math. Your are walking. This is the point expressed in the blog. It have not argued that programming is totally devoid of math, that math can't be used to formally think about it or something like that. Is that is better to think that programing is programing, and like you don't say "programing is relativity" then teach programming using relativity(!) and dismiss programing as a real, whole thing that only can be explained by relativity(!) and tell everyone that to be a good programmer you MUST understand very well relativity. That is what the article is saying.