I find the introduction interesting, it somehow clicked. Devs are like toddlers playing with wooden bricks, who are demanded to scale up this act of building to the level of a grown up's house.
In fact it often feels that way. You're either asked to extend or improve existing constructions that feel like sticks and stones bound together with rubber bands. Or one feels excited for being allowed to make up such a construction as a demo, not knowing it will be used as a basis for a production-quality construction.
I'm not sure if mathematical proof is the way to go. There's just too much code to cover for this approach to be realistic.
Most problems are born on the drawing table. The designs seem right on paper and only in practice, during or after building, they become visable.
In fact it often feels that way. You're either asked to extend or improve existing constructions that feel like sticks and stones bound together with rubber bands. Or one feels excited for being allowed to make up such a construction as a demo, not knowing it will be used as a basis for a production-quality construction.
I'm not sure if mathematical proof is the way to go. There's just too much code to cover for this approach to be realistic.
Most problems are born on the drawing table. The designs seem right on paper and only in practice, during or after building, they become visable.