Originally posted by Paul Clapham:
I would say it's more like a craft than an art. Loosely speaking, art doesn't aim to produce useful things whereas craft does. It's somewhere between knitting and plumbing.
What is an example of 'useful things' in this universe? Knitting needles, a pipe wrench, any kind of tool?
There is a broader definition of what constitutes an art, as opposed to a science. In short, the arts rely more on some aspect of human behavior or limits -- perception, intuition, style, perspective -- whereas sciences rely on concrete knowledge, facts, dynamics that can be described in the abstract, etc.
So I think it depends in part how one approaches programming. The simpler elements can be analyzed, described in empirical terms, broken into functional elements (e.g., design
patterns), and so on. But what can be expressed in programming, in my view, far exceeds what most people want or expect from it. In my view, that takes things out of the realm of science and into art.
That said, what passes as art in programming to
me has less to do with the intended use of a finished program and more to do with its design and composition. I don't see art at all in a GUI and very rarely in a contemporary CLI implementation, but in the structure of a well-written program, there can be a mind-boggling amount of wisdom to appreciate and learn from.
Good art, whether it's in mathematics, combat, painting, music, programming or something else, reveals beauty. It can teach and inspire. Practitioners of science, in my view, prefers to encapsulate facts and truths, owing to the rigor that is required. I often find 'good' science fascinating, and possibly entertaining, too, but it does not carry for me a power that is equal to good art.
[ March 31, 2008: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
