When I was in college, one CS professor explained the difficulty of coding to me in terms of discreteness vs continuity. In the real world, things are continuous. If you accidentally build your structure with 9 supports instead of 10, then you only lose 10% of the strength of the structure, more or less. The strength varies continuously with the amount of support. But if you're writing a 10-line program and you forge…
> But if you're writing a 10-line program and you forget one of the lines (or even one character), the program isn't 10% wrong, it's 100% wrong. (For example, instead of compiling and running correctly, it doesn't compile at all. Completely different results.) This is where the beauty/simplicity of some programming languages, namely, intepreted languages (e.g., Python), comes in: if a bad line of code never gets exec…
That's not beautiful; that's horrendous. A program that might contain syntactic (!) errors has no claim to being a sublime mathematical construct.
I'd say it's "beautifully simple" when I can tell you with 100% confidence that my program will never, ever, ever experience errors of a certain type. Even better if I can tell you with 100% confidence that my program contains no errors at all (which is possible with proof-based languages).
Saying a Python program is beautiful because it can have hidden failure conditions is like saying that a poorly maintained gun is beautiful because it can fire when rusty (but watch out for explosions!).
I wish, when learning to program, that I'd been taught to write universally correct code instead of "mostly correct" code.