I wonder if this could be applied to linguistics. Mathematics and natural sciences have structure in them that you can easily follow, given similar rigidness to what the blog post describes. Linguistics is about a subject that's in constant change, miserable in size as it may be to an observer; the only "solid" parts about it are grammar and phonetics, and even then...
I'm sure it can--phonics is a good example: once you know it, you can almost always pronounce words that you haven't seen before. Same thing with algebra and equations/derivations/proofs you haven't seen: if the axioms are part of how your mind works, the math comes naturally to you. Interestingly, I think computer science has some things to learn from linguistics about how to teach programming. I'd like to take the time to properly develop a curriculum for teaching a programming language as a written language one of these days.
That's something I came to think as well. There's a reason they're called "programming languages", even if people relate them closer to mathematics. The grammar might not be particularly human-friendly relative to English, but then - it isn't often with languages you're only starting to learn. If you'd ever like to discuss the matter - feel free to message me: I'd be excited to merge my two passions for a purpose. If you already have some observation on the matter that you could share - please do, here or in IRC: I'd be delighted to hear it.Interestingly, I think computer science has some things to learn from linguistics about how to teach programming.