As usual, the answer to the eternal question of “how much formal math training do you need for X” turns out to be “right around the amount the author of the argument has had.” Why is it that we always have to prove the instrumental value of maths education? You’re a lot more likely to “need” your maths in the “real world” than your Shakespeare, but few have much energy for fighting the idea that literature should be studied for it’s own sake. Wondering about the minimum amount of effort required for success is more valuable for its insights into whether this is something you should pursue than for any answer you could find.

So here’s what I should think is the obvious answer: No, significant formal or informal maths training is neither necessary nor sufficient for a successful or even exemplary career as a programmer. But talent and success in the two do seem to correlate pretty strongly, and those who do have above average backgrounds in maths seem to feel it’s beneficial and provides an advantage. No, you don’t need maths any more than you need strong writing skills or comfort teaching or experience with office politics or a sophisticated sense of humour. Those are all, however, astonishingly useful in getting the things you want, even if that’s only a richer experience of life.