I slightly disagree. About half of the creative people with math knack can&#x27;t code.<p>When I was in high school, the advanced math class had ~two types of people. People good at arithmetics and functions and people good at geometry and functions. People who we&#x27;re good at arithmetics but weren&#x27;t good at functions dropped out quickly.<p>Go to engineering school and you will find software people who thing about graphics as an afterthought. They remember numbers and words easily, enjoy squashing bugs. And they are good with function like ideas, that turn into programs. Like search engines, text editors, finding primes and brute forcing passwords. (I don&#x27;t know really as I don&#x27;t belong to their tribe.)<p>Then there are construction and mechanical engineering students. They won&#x27;t code voluntarily, because they are crap at it. &quot;What the fuck did I name that thing? How many steps should this while loop do?&quot; Just doesn&#x27;t compute. Yet these people can manage pretty massive concept design and 3D models and whatnot. CAD work is fun to them, unlike most CS majors. I&#x27;m one of that group. While I can do small programs in Python, I don&#x27;t enjoy what I&#x27;m capable of doing. Learning more seems futile, as I will never be actually good at it.<p>This divide into two groups shows in later life too. Just check the prices of decent CAD tools, and compare them to decent IDEs. For some reason people who are able to enjoy both CAD and coding are incredibly rare. And that makes them very valuable.<p>If you could make graphic, grown up and powerful language, that would tap pretty huge resource of brain power. Currently it might happen as some sort of hydraulic simulation tool or autolisp plug to Autocad.