> Anyway, lots of mathematicians works really hard to make everything as understandable as possible
You just said they don't because it's not worth it. So which is it in the end?
> In programming you learn an instruction set, and then you use those instructions to compose programs, therefore learning that instruction set is relatively easy.
Yeah, sure. Elementary arithmetic, like 22 and so on, is also not that hard to learn. What you're saying is barely scratching the surface of what programming is, then misrepresent it as the whole truth.
It's not that programming is easy. It's just that you can still earn a very good salary without ever touching the harder and more complex parts. People who knew how to do 2
2 were also well-paid at some point in the past, yet Euclid still managed to write his Elements. You're like an actuary (working under a Pharaoh to count the cattle, let's say) who says that writing Elements is as easy as his current job (you could do it yourself, but you're too busy right now, so maybe later).
> For example, when learning programming you have to learn about arithmetics, pointers, functions and structs.
And then you try to write a JIT for a dynamic (and concurrent, let's say, as Erlang succeeded in this in the last release) language and, with just "arithmetics, pointers, functions and structs", it becomes obvious it's not nearly enough. Then you start reading books and papers and soon you realize that 5 years have just passed. And JITs are not really that complex!
> Programming however becomes the art of expressing everything using these very simple instructions.
Programming is an art of creating new instructions, both out of thin air and out of already existing instructions. The fact that you seem to think "the instruction set" (meaning concepts that have to be understood, I think?) is constant suggests to me that you you're not very interested in history of the field.
