I love PL research, for all its warts. I worry that it's wasted on most programmers, because we don't get a comprehensive pedagogy of each type of problem that

I love PL research, for all its warts. I worry that it's wasted on most programmers, because we don't get a comprehensive pedagogy of each type of problem that these abstractions are meant to solve, and contexts where a less abstracted approach is preferable. The result is the much maligned cargo cult method - presented with so many options, we invariably end up with all of them put into production at the same time, for the wrong reasons. Experience is gained through a combination of guess and check, and rumor. A lot of the confusion with current PL science as it's presented to programmers is in the emphasis on mathematical methods. Restrictions that are proven to improve statistical metrics or lead to important technology within the toolchain get dismissed on the regular as being incomprehensible or incompatible with "my style". Surface changes get the majority of attention, bad or good. The PL designer has a tough job in that, if they're going for the general purpose crown, they have to comfort the nervous creatures that are ordinary programmers while also incorporating the best practices of the known science.