A viewpoint that complex systems that need to be modeled into code can all be reduced to a formal (mathematical) construct of a programming type system.

I contend that the majority of complex software systems are not transformative processes that can be so easily modeled. This majority is not problems in the computer or data sciences, or those of computing infrastructure or services.

Modeling for example, a complex payroll system or large airline reservation system, cannot be effectively represented that way. Enterprises tried doing so for a decade of “structured analysis” i.e. a dataflow approach. Were no lessons learned from that?

You're thinking of it backwards. It's not that you perform a transformative process from real world to formal system, it's that the interaction of the real world and creating the formal system changes your understanding of the problem.

The computer doesn't process reality, but it can keep you honest about what terms you use in your language and how those terms relate to one another. God, I hope we've learned something from all of those disasters.

You don't change the computer to solve your problem. The computer changes your understanding of what the problem is.

Is this a Time Cube parody?

https://timecube.2enp.com/

I think the piece is meant to be tongue-in-cheek like saying "A monad in is simply a monoid in the category of endofunctors."

There's an essay by Peter Naur (the N in BNF) called Programming As Theory Building that I think captures the author's point: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Naur.pdf

It's always so sad to see when someone can't express their thoughts in a way that others can comprehend it :(

Unfortunately, the images really detract from some of the author's writing. I found this gem though >> 'Different people, different context, different goals -> different project'

Was this produced by an AI

Haha, this is a hilarious diss of programming.