Programming is hard because, just to take three examples:
(a) There are a lot of concepts that must be understood both individually and in all combinations. Learning to program well is very labor intensive.
(b) Programs are large and controlling complexity is difficult. Preventing bugs even in small programs is difficult; preventing them in large programs is extraordinarily difficult.
(c) Programming is highly technical in the same sense as mathematics and physics. This will not make it difficult for all, but it will for most.
"Why are these statements often not accompanied by supporting evidence?" Why do people say ballet is hard without supporting evidence? Because it is self-evident? Are there any excellent programmers who claim it is easy?
"What is the empirical evidence that programming, broadly speaking, is inherently hard, or harder than possible analogs such as calculus in mathematics?" See (a) and (b).
"Even if that evidence exists, what does it mean in practice?" It means that most programmers aren't very good and that great programmers are very hard to find. It means that many people will go into this technical field because salaries are good, only to face bitter disappointment when reality sinks in. It means that most software is horrendously terrible, because people think programming is easy and that their nephew can create the vaccine registration site.
The local community college district is run by the State.
That might explain it but that oath still seems unusual.
I don't think that many states require this of their employees, but I'm not an expert. I am surprised that nobody seems upset that California does this.
If you are armed, then you are not free from arms. The slogan makes no logical sense.
Either you are thinking this over too hard or not hard enough.
Wrong.
Imagine a gazelle on the savanna, is this animal free? Sure, it can roam far and wide if it chooses. What it is not free from is other gazelles. For the gazelles to get along there must be a hierarchy, which they defend with their horns. If we take away their horns does that free them from horns? Sure. They might still get along but that will be short lived, this peaceful coexistence will be broken when a lion comes. Those horns are not only used to keep the peace among the gazelles but also to defend the gazelles from the lions. The lions would love to see gazelles without horns, if they could take the horns then the gazelles would no longer be free to roam the savanna.
Freeing the gazelles of their horns does not free them of the claws of the lion. The gazelles are free to roam only to the point their horns keep the lions away.
Disarming myself might free me from my own guns but that does not disarm the thugs around me. So long as I stay with my "herd" I'm quite safe. We have a, perhaps informal and unspoken, hierarchy and order we maintain amongst ourselves. This is in part from a desire to be left alone and in part from a, perhaps also unspoken, promise to defend our desire to be left alone with potentially lethal force. The other gazelles know of this, as do the lions.
If the herd is threatened from the outside then I'm only as free as my ability to defend my herd. I might be able to rely on the other "gazelles" in my herd that chose to keep their horns but maybe not. I don't know if those gazelles also chose to "dehorn" themselves since unlike horns on a gazelle the weapons we carry are not as prominent. We can't always see the lions, and the lions cannot always see our horns. That is what keeps us gazelles free, or as free as we could possibly be in any real world.
Does that make sense?
No, but the discussion, while it would be fun, is off topic (topic was community colleges).
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.