I would also add classification and focusing on edge cases.

+ focus on identifying and relieving bottlenecks

I am surprised you did not get that from mathematics, so I wonder what level/type of mathematics did you do?

I can get that you usually don't get it from regular high school mathematics, but even there one should learn to deal with proofs and deducing stuff in a precise, non-ambiguous way, and you have to pay attention to detail.

Coding allowed me to build things with my analytical mind liking precision and patterns, so it's the way for my "mathematical" brain to express creativity.

I did not mention that mathematics did not teach me that, but programming pushed that to a limit that maths didn't - probably because I do not spend 8h a day, every working day doing maths :)

> Precision when describing (programming does not allow ambiguity)

Really? Should we count how many bugs happen due to type conversion, precision errors, off by one etc?

Well, I try my best to avoid bugs and be as precise as I can. But hey, I'm only human ;)

You only reinforcing the point that programming does not allow ambiguity; thus: bugs.

No engineering discipline allows for “ambiguity” at least how you use it here, try building a train or a spacecraft with that level of ambiguity at that point the bugs tend to make things go boom.

> - Precision when describing (programming does not allow ambiguity)

Probabilistic programming and machine learning do!

The existence of your reply is a case in point that programming teaches "Precision when describing".

Also iteration.

And recursion :)

+ Learning confirmation and other biases