Edit: added last sentence.

I'd imagine that + some sampling bias (math majors almost universally love complex abstractions and algorithms unlike almost any other major) feels like it would explain it?

I've heard this multiple times and it always misses the point.

Isomorphisms exist whenever we focus on particular structural features of mathematical objects, to the exclusion of irrelevant characteristics. For example, all completions of "the" rational numbers are isomorphic with respect to the structure of ordered fields, be they equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences, Dedekind cuts or something else. But they're clearly not isomorphic as sets.

Similarly, all n-dimensional F-vector spaces, for fixed n and a field F, are isomorphic as vector spaces. That doesn't mean they're all the same - 4-dimensional vectors and 2x2 matrices are very different things, for example.

Mathematical proofs and computer programs are isomorphic from a very specific point of view, namely type theory (which doesn't even apply to dynamically typed languages). That doesn't translate into mathematics necessarily being useful for all other aspects that are important in computer programs, nor into computer programmers having a good understanding of how proofs work.

0.000001% of 8 billion is 80 people. Your math is off by a few orders of magnitude : P

Another benefit is that getting programs to work made me more systematic with my math and pay attention to all the variables/equations required to solve something. I've had colleagues who would derive something and share their formulas, not realizing there are missing things, because they haven't tested it in code.

That was an experience that really stuck with me, and I must say I'm kind of surprised at many of the naysayer opinions in this thread.

To this day I'll fire up a REPL to explore some math ideas. Maybe I'm weird and am just more programming minded than most, or my prior programming helped.