On Thursday 06 December 2007 11:29:53 Dave Crossland wrote: > > [ assertion is: code is like art (as well as like speech) ] > I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to > making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork, > but artworks themselves do not function.
No, the difference is that not all art has a function beyond existing. Similarly, you can argue the same about languages like brainf*** and perl modules like the Buffy module, and poetry written in perl, as well as systems written in processing (where the underlying source functions in the same way as paint in a painting). Code itself can have beauty. It can also be revolting. Art can be said to be in the eye of the beholder. Much that is engineered is beautiful and is my view art. I'm very much with Paul Graham when I agree that software is as much art as it is engineering. Indeed, despite having a CS degree I view it as more engineering and art than I do science. Also, if you recognise it as both, engineering and art, you gain the benefits of the disciplines of each. (Sketch books for testing ideas, practice, testing, play, exploration; component decomposition, assertion, test based specification then test driven development, he says summarising a 1/2 hour talk from Pycon on the idea.) Not particularly interested in the TIVO conversation myself. :-) Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
