There is a recurring pattern where people who love building games or apps as a hobby end up frustrated or disillusioned in computer science programs. The issue is often framed as difficulty or lack of preparation, but the deeper problem is a mismatch in motivation.

Hobby programming, especially game and app development, is driven by construction. The enjoyment comes from making something exist, seeing it run, experimenting, and iterating quickly. The feedback loop is immediate and visual. Creativity, clever hacks, and shipping something that works are rewarded.

Academic computer science removes most of those incentives.

Instead of building, the focus is on reduction and abstraction. Problems are formalized, implementations are stripped away, and reasoning happens independently of any concrete program. Progress is measured through proofs, asymptotic bounds, classifications, and impossibility results. Feedback is slow and symbolic. Success means correctness and generality, not expressiveness or playfulness.

From a motivational standpoint, this is not merely different from hobby programming. It is the opposite. Many of the things that make building games or apps fun are irrelevant or actively discouraged in computer science courses.

This helps explain why:

* People who struggle in CS can become excellent software engineers.

* People who enjoy theory often dislike real-world programming.

* Hobby programmers feel misled when entering a CS degree.

The core issue is expectations. Computer science is frequently marketed using apps, games, and “learning to code,” even though the discipline is much closer to applied mathematics and logic than to building software products.

Computer science is not bad or useless. It is a deep and valuable field. But for people motivated by making things, iterating quickly, and creating interactive experiences, it is often a poor motivational fit.

What do you think of this view? Is computer science the exact opposite of hobby programming?