I promise I didn’t forget about you @lunapwrites, it just took me a bit to put my thoughts into (a lot of) words.
You said: I am... Extremely interested in this. Especially because my personal HC for Arithmancy and Runes is literally like Wizard Coding. Here for it.
I do agree that Arithmancy and Runes are like wizard coding, because I do think they share a lot of hallmarks of what we traditionally thing of code looking and acting like: you input a combination of symbols/numbers/letters into a text based system and get an output of whatever the code is supposed to do (ie magic, formatting your website, running an application, etc).
I should clarify that in my original post, I was thinking more scripting languages like Python, since that's what I’m currently studying, and it's specifically scripting languages that I was thinking resemble spells in canon (versus other types of code like markup languages (html) or compiled languages (C)).
I think of Arithmancy and Runes as closer to a compiled language— the finished product is a set of instructions /compiled/ into an application that works with the data it's given. In other words, you build the whole thing, then it can run the steps you built. Potions, in some ways, also fits into this category.
Scripting languages, otoh, aren't compiled, and are (at least, as I'm using here*) interpreted /scripts/ or individual pieces of code where specific actions are associated with each piece. It's faster and easier to use, and can, in many cases, be used piecemeal.
The linguistic methodology of spells in Harry Potter (specifically what we see of Defense, Transfiguration, and Charms) functions similarly to the syntax in scripting languages. One command performs an action, often but not always on a subject/input.
So you can use a command like print() where the text you want the application to spit out is in parentheses, and likewise you can shoot sparks, where you choose the color of sparks either mentally or verbally with a variant of the same command and directed wherever you point your wand.
Likewise, the commands are highly specific— for magic, the wrong wand movement or pronunciation can have disastrous results or be a completely different spell; for code, the wrong word or missing punctuation can cause a crash or a different action than intended.
Everyone I know who uses scripting languages regularly
1) has scripts they know off the top of their head,
2) has a file somewhere with the scripts they use just often enough that they forget in between uses, and
3) still has to google specific code or situations because they don't remember or don’t know exactly what their looking for.
So what I was struck with (as I looked up a highly specific command in a specific module which I've never needed before and will likely never need again) is that magic users would need to know a whole library worth of highly specific spells, and would probably still run into situations where they know there's a spell, but it's not one they've used before or regularly, and would have to look up and then apply that spell.
I would imagine that Hogwarts, not unlike a lot of IT/data science programs, start you off with a collection of easy and necessary scripts/spells, and teach a lot more theory than is initially obvious. It feels like you’re learning highly specific commands, which you are, but the goal of magical education is not unlike “learn to code” classes— to teach you the commands you’ll use so frequently you’ll never forget them, the rhythm and methodology of using those commands, and what to do when you don’t know the command.
Take switching spells for example— how often do you need to swap the positions of two similar sized objects? Probably not often, but you might use other, possibly more complicated spells that have two fixed objects, and it will use the same fundamentals and application, you’ll just have to look the spell up when you need it.
A final note on the application of this knowledge is that jobs that require coding knowledge typically involve a portion of the interview in which you prove your ability to fix or write code, sometimes in a specific language, and sometimes in whatever your preferred language is, so long as it's capable of performing the required tasks. However, once you get the job, they might have specific scripts that everyone uses within that team/company's specific function (in my last job, someone literally emailed me a 5 page long list that they'd been adding to since they started working there).
So it's reasonable to assume many wizarding world jobs both require a sort of “magical interview” where the interviewee is asked to perform specific spells or solve specific problems, and then once they get the job, are told the commonly used spells in that job. A person with good reasoning skills or a large working knowledge of spells would have an advantage over one who didn’t, but a person who already knows the specialized spells would have an even greater advantage in the interview process, but not necessarily after that.
(As a side note, code == magic adds a bonus layer to Snape's character specifically. We know he creates his own spells/code with the primary goal of hurting others, creepily pines for a girl who “friendzoned” him and hasn’t talked to him since they were fifteen, joined a terrorist org, and complained that other magical people don't use logic enough. Tell me he doesn’t hang out on the worst parts of magical Reddit/4chan/etc.)
*the actual languages that fit into scripting vs compiled aren’t necessarily cut and dry, and there are several that are used for both categories, where the individual scripts are compiled into a full application and used as such. Similarly, I think some transfiguration and charms could be used more like a compiled language— think of Hermione's bag with the undetectable extension charm, or Sirius and James' mirrors.
