[nudge]

Did anyone actually make this claim here? You quoted two words out of a comment that said quite a bit beside, including:

"Sure, they're not at all reflective of 'real programming' nor are they necessarily particularly challenging, programming wise."

Nobody claimed Project Euler is the way to become a great programmer. I would roll my eyes at your mistake, but I don't roll my eyes at people's mistakes. I try to help them correct them.

[WilliamLP]

Don't get me wrong, I love Project Euler and had a blast doing a couple of hundred problems in Java a couple years ago. I make these claims:

1. The problem solving there has almost no connection to what it is like for the vast majority of uses of writing a computer problem.

2. It is in no sense a varied set of tasks. It's similar to a math contest problem set, with some basic string manipulation masquerading as numerical problems (pandigital numbers, etc.)

3. The programming and program design required to solve tasks in this narrow space is trivial, and not particularly instructive of how you'd write programs in another space.

4. Functional programming articles tend to mention and place stock in Project Euler problems to a degree which, in my opinion, is unusually much larger compared general programming articles.

[lolipop1]

I think you're simply talking about different complementary things.

One speaks about the fact that you can learn the basic keywords and flow (as in how the language is parsed) using simple mathematic problems.

While the other speaks about solving real-world problems require more diversity.