Knowing the features of your language can expand your horizons. I had already been a programmer for years when JavaScript entered a new era, and I thought I knew a thing or two about computing.

With time, I understood that what I had was a lot of memorised knowledge about specific systems. The layout of a Master Boot Record. The numbers to BIOS interrupt calls. Memory addresses.

The transition from Pascal to C that I made at age 12 had only opened my eyes a little. I learned that there is no true distinction between a function and a procedure (subroutine), that statements and expressions are really two sides of the same coin, that a for() loop doesn’t have to enumerate anything, and that pointers, direct memory access and direct access to system calls are a very powerful tool.

For the past 10 years, I found myself repeatedly involved in web development projects. I had minimal interest in JavaScript at first, viewing it as a toy language for simple automations, and I did most of the heavy lifting in PHP and Java Servlets. Gradually, as people began doing more and more “weird” stuff in it, I became more curious.

That’s when I fell into the rabbit hole.

Functional programming, map-reduce, lambda notation, closures, asynchronous code, generators, observables, applying argument lists to functions at runtime, destructuring assignments, spread notation, treating functions as behaviours you can pass around...

Basically, stuff that modern JavaScript has borrowed from languages such as Lisp.

It made me aware that there’s a distinction between computing as a Platonic ideal and computing as a practical discipline. Computing is a set of ideas about information and the logic of manipulating it.

Computer science is a branch of mathematics and information theory. Computer programs are living equations, written in a notation rigid enough that a machine can read them and perform computations with them.

I didn’t have that kind of perspective 10 years ago. My skill as a programmer has taken a very solid step up. Unfortunately, this has also made me overqualified, and I’m often in a situation where I’m doing work that just about any developer with a couple of years’ experience could pull off, and would learn much more from than me because they’ve never done it before.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the jobs that require you to actually appreciate the nuances of computing and programming on this level are virtually non-existent. Most customers don’t care if the application software is a rotting carcass under the hood. They want it cheaply and quickly, and if it breaks, “That’s what computer programs do, isn’t it?” and then they pay someone to fix it.

In most cases, the practical craft of programming is very far removed from that Platonic ideal I mentioned.

I would argue that the craft of programming is in fact almost entirely unrelated to the field of computer science. Here is an analogy: Building elaborate cuckoo clocks involves a great deal of classical mechanics, but it doesn't teach you anything fundamental about physics. A watchmaker is not a theoretical physicist, even if his practical knowledge of the mechanical movement of small parts suspended in a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen in a narrow temperature range under the influence of the gravitational field of a particular planet may be quite excellent.