I contest your second point, by definition my pensil and paper are not executable environments. My brain is, but this gets us into the game of "how much computer can you simulate with your brain."

Why do we play the game of simulate-the-computer? We've had computer environments for at least 40 years now that do that thinking for us, that answer our questions about control flow or definitions or alternate scenarios. We have them, they were thought up, written up and delivered. Yet as a field we value this stupid idea of working alone without help and don't teach these workflows using the computer as a partner. No, in 2019 if you can't do it on paper you don't know it. That's bullshit, yet here I am and I can do it on paper. I'm just sad for those who come after me and have to go through the same wasteful hazing.

This seems too broad to make a general rule. Shall I not use calculators and memorize trig tables to better understand the tools that are these functions?

I would be interested in seeing that experiment, I cant come up with a concrete example in my head which would follow that pattern.

> maps

I agree, I think most people should not have to become experts on local roads, then again, I think you over simplify the issue. I would bet that most people are experts on their local roads. I am in my hometown, I am not when I travel.

I do not know how pdfs are made today, but keynote/power point are generally drawn with WYSIWYG tools rather than post script or latex. I am not aware that I have ever read a pdf or been to a presentation with slides not generated by one of these WYSIWYG tools in my entire life. I have never actually opened one of these files, but I also don't expect that I could. I would bet they are not stored in text files.

Overall I contest each of your points, though I appreciate the ideas. I understand the sentiment but don't agree on the reality. Sorry for the late reply, I'm happy to continue if you have the time.