4 ms·
I think dismissing "programming as art" as irrelevant and hurtful to the community is dangerous. Here we have the tools to create a near-infinite amount of almo
by davidalln 16y ago
I think dismissing "programming as art" as irrelevant and hurtful to the community is dangerous. Here we have the tools to create a near-infinite amount of almost everything that can run on a computer. We use code to run complicated robots that can drive a course without human input, solve the most complicated mathematic problems of today, and create artificial intelligence with the ability to learn as it ages. Yet at the same time, we use code to make short chiptune songs and fun small games hacked away in an hour or two.
Wikipedia defines art as "the product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions", and science as "the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories." Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Through creation and exploring, such as in _why's projects, we are further "gathering knowledge" about the limits computers can be used. And at the same time, we are creating art as these programs have had a clear impact on at least the Ruby community.
And, bringing up a more "sciencey" example, if the fact that my handheld calculator can solve complicated algebra and calculus equations in less than a second doesn't "affect [your] senses or emotions", then you need a reality check on just how impressive technology has come in such a short time.
I personally believe that programming is one of the rawest forms of creation imaginable, and therefore must be of some artistic worth. Simply calling it science and moving on does a disservice to those who slaved for so many hours working on their piece of computer science history.
- gdp 16y agoI agree that computing as an activity has manifestations that could be understood to be art, but that doesn't make _programming_ art. Glorifying programming as an art is like glorifying spelling as salient to the quality of Shakespeare's plays. Programming is the act of expressing programs. Coming up with interesting things for those programs to do definitely follows a creative process of human inspiration, but actually writing those programs down is not an "art". It's a fairly normative process in most cases, and it can (and should!) be made more normative.
- _delirium 16y agoI'd strongly disagree with that. I'd argue: it's rarely a normative process, and can (and should!) be made less normative. In fact, almost the only times it can be considered close to normative are when it's in a huge organization banging out boilerplate code, because in that case you've already assumed a fixed structure and placed "programming" into a niche within it, and declared that the structure isn't currently up for reevaluation. But I don't think that fundamentally you can separate the act of expressing programs from the act of coming up with interesting things for them to do. The materials of the medium constrain what is possible or easy to express, and it's quite hard to produce anything good if you try to artificially separate them into levels of specification vs. implementation.
- jimbokun 16y agoI feel that you are going Humpty Dumpty on us, picking a meaning for "programming" that makes your point but is far a field of what the term "programming" means in the minds of practitioners. Basically, you have defined programming as a form of dictation. That definition makes your arguments true. But it does not follow the common usage of this term, especially as a site like this.
- jmillikin 16y agoCode can be used to create art. Wood can be used to create art. An HTML parser is not art, any more than disposable chopsticks are. I've never understood _why's fan base; he seems to be no more than somebody who popped up, wrote a few low-quality libraries for an obscure language, and then vanished.
- starkfist 16y agoWell, he's gone now. So you guys won.
- jacquesm 16y agoAre you somehow suggesting that _Why disappeared because of the GP and 'his kind'?
- starkfist 16y agoYes, that is what I'm suggesting.
- jacquesm 16y agoNo wonder you're angry then. Ok, that makes me understand your position in this thread a bit better. Thanks for the explanation!
- steveklabnik 16y agoTo give you an example of why starkfist would say something like this, you only need to look at @_why's last few tweets: "programming is rather thankless. you see your works become replaced by superior works in a year. unable to run at all in a few more." "if you program and want any longevity to your work, make a game. all else recycles, but people rewrite architectures to keep games alive." "an ascending homage to fish bones. culminating in a delicate canopy of mouse furs." ... Okay, maybe not that last one. Anyway. He was obviously contemplating all of the stuff we've created around software, and was pretty bummed out by it. Not that anyone will know _exactly_ why he disappeared, but still.
- s-phi-nl 16y agoLook at http://www.paulgraham.com/knuth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/knuth.html for a discussion of computer programming as both art and science.