If I'm building X-ray scanning software I'm going to be careful. But if I'm writing a Slack lunch bot in Coq for anything but the fun of it, I'm making questionable choices.
You know the old saying: "Anyone can build a bridge that stands. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."
All I want is for the people in this industry to take it seriously, for us to have standards as an industry, and some kind of professional certification to exclude those that don't know the basics. Software is rife with cowboys and it harms the image of those of us who actually care.
But does it fix my problem? I'm sure category theory is interesting for it's own sake, but it won't help my boss add this extra attribute to our product, so it won't help me get paid.
Given that I've already added fifteen form fields this week, my mind is too overburdened to care much about category theory, which will have exactly zero relevance to my next week of adding form fields.
That's part of a larger issue though, where we actually let non-technical people dictate technical specs to us.
FWIW, I understand how monads work in Haskell & co, and I definitely see their value. But I don't consider myself to know any category theory at all.
There aren't - as an example - mechanical engineering "bootcamps" because mechanical engineering is an actual engineering field, with high standards, real accreditation, and professionalism. We don't have that, we have middle aged men giving talks in t-shirts and saying stuff like "ninja" and "awesome".
I think we need to face up and rectify the fact that we aren't engineering before we can advance. And yes this requires excluding people who aren't up to standards. We're not the equivalent of chemical engineers - we're the equivalent of alchemists.
[0] with the Caveat that stuff done in Avionics, or Medical Imaging, or anything else with very high standards and rigorous processes could probably be called that.