Hello 2015

[Adam L. Beberg]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Sateesh Narahari wrote:

> writing code is art, because our profession sucks as a science. It will
> continue to be an art till we have well defined principles, patterns
> established.

*chuckles*

Well, I wouldnt count on that ever happening. Languages are evolving in
directions so that you need to know less and less to use them, insuring that
engineering principles will never happen.

> It is not necessary for the code to be good to be called art. Even bad code
> can be considered art. If the code evokes strong feelings ( negative,
> positive), think that it is art. For example, some paintings are so
> disgusting, the NY museam of art puts them on display. Similarly, some code
> is so disgusting, Microsoft releases it as sample code.

Is a paintbrush art? Is a chisel art? Is a typewriter art?
Of course not, no more then code is art.

Code is a TOOL, a set of instuctions. What the software does can be art, but
most software is just another tool that might be used to create art.

Winamp plugin that makes those purrrrdy graphics: art.
Device driver: tool.

Engineers make tools, most software engineers just make really crappy tools
with MTBF measured in seconds not decades like other engineers.
"GNU/softBuilding will only collapse killing everyone inside every 47 hours,
this gives GNU/softBuilding a huge advantage over the Microsoft WinBuilding
which collapses every 36 hours."

Not to say that coding isn't a creative process during that 0.1% of the
time you're not just reimplementing something old, or implementing a
standard/specification for compliance.

"Creative process" is what artists use, so coders can feel good even tho
they make tools, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Tools are good, you just cant impress women with them, for that you need
art - thus code is definately not art and geeks aren't artists :)

- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
  http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/
  beberg@mithral.com