Some nice thoughts in here

“Experienced programmers don’t think in text at all”

I argue the premise of that statement is flawed. It’s misleading, suggesting that “programming languages” are flawed because they are text. Here is an example. 1. Send a text message. In order to model that out we may need some tool for entering data, import Twilio package, get an access token, call an API, store some data in the database. In this domain of abstraction perhaps we can say Jonathan is correct because it’s very non-linear — However, I detailed the high level steps in plain English. I also could write those down in a backlog, in text… so I kinda am thinking in text, but it’s not the final nor exclusive step. 2. Take the same example in another product; Alexa or Siri (just for example) — Do you still “think” in text? I say the premise if flawed because it’s misleading. It’s not about “how you think” it’s about how you understand (read) and how you create (write). The “think” part is more personal and cerebral.

I wrote this feedback in text. Are you “thinking” in text when reading it? Likely not… you likely have emotions, feelings, “thoughts” — not text.

I interpreted it to mean think at a higher level than text. Like not in detail, in the overall structure. So doesn’t mean it’s not composed of small chunks aka “text”

I have the same interpretation as you, @opeispo. The example of a painter painting or someone driving a car resonates. Many times when that painter or driver is going through the motions or "in flow", they aren't mentally "available" to stop and describe what and why they are mixing colors in a specific way, or way they changed lanes to make room between cars.

It’s also a fluency thing.. like this https://twitter.com/opeispo/status/1291079668817428480?s=20

That's an awesome analogy, too!