> People laughed at Seymour Papert in the 1960s, more than half a century ago, when he vividly talked about children using computers as instruments for learning and for enhancing creativity, innovation, and "concretizing" computational thinking.[1]
> ...our intelligence resides not in individual brains but in the collective mind. To function, individuals rely not only on knowledge that is stored within our skulls but also on knowledge stored elsewhere, be it in our bodies, in the environment or especially in other people. Put together, human thought is incredibly impressive, but at its deepest level it never belongs to any individual alone. [1]
I think what you said is true. But the main point implied here but I didn't mentioned is the mindset or competence is quite different between programming competition & real work. After all, being good on the job depends more on reflection, going slowly, making things right. ;-)
> monads aren’t actually all that complicated. In fact, most of the experienced functional programmers I’ve met consider them downright simple. It’s just that newcomers often have a really hard time trying to figure out what exactly monads even are... A lot of intermediate-to-advanced functional programmers have taken it upon themselves to write monad tutorials... But for the most part, these tutorials never seem to work.
It reminds me of a book I read last year: Bored and Brilliant[1].
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Bored-Brilliant-Spacing-Productive-Cr...