Is programming an art or a science?
-
It is business, man, business. Art is business, science is business. Everything is business. :)
Everything is business. Even, aah, the pleasures of life? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
Or a mixture of both? and how much in each category? What are your thoughts, and where do you think programming is an art, and where do you think it is a science? An by art, I'm not referring to GUI or web design or any other graphical element. I mean "art" in the inspirational sense of creativity--the "ah ha" experience when writing a nifty function, for example. Personally, I would say that programming is more of an art, but it has the potential to become more of a science. Sort of like being a doctor in the 19th century vs. in the 21st century. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Good morning Marc :-) It should be a combination of both, similar to architecture, say. But unfortunately, it currently seems to be more of a voodoo practice[^] than anything else. I like the analogy of 19C doctors, though.
I'd wear a miniskirt and pimp myself for an extra ten grand a year. - David Wulff
-
An engineer without a sense of art is a mechanical robot. :) -- This space for rent.
An engineer without a sense of art is a mechanical robot. Art without a sense of science is an irrelevant abstraction? (Couldn't help myself). So, art is implicit in the non-mechanical aspects of engineering (or science in general)--ie., the creative aspects. Creativity = art? This space for rent. $5 for "Marc Loves Karen" going once... going twice... Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
I'd say it is a young science in a emperical stage. Early 1900's then. :-D I think too many people belive that because you are following a scientific foundation / ideas you can't be creative inside that structure. I agree. What comes to mind is how our educational system seems to stifle the creativity part. So, one can have a set of programming tools/guidelines that are based on solid "science" but apply them creatively? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Marc Clifton wrote: So, one can have a set of programming tools/guidelines that are based on solid "science" but apply them creatively? Exactly! This how a lot of scientific and engineering advances seem to happen. Look at Einstein. While a lot of people belived he was smoking some good *stuff*, he used first principles in physics to develop radicaly new theories. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
definitely more an art. However, the closer you get to the hardware the more scientific it becomes. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
the closer you get to the hardware the more scientific it becomes. Oooh, I've seen some really artistic hardware engineering. More in the analog world, but sometimes some really interesting things in the digital world. Boy, just think about those pictures magnified a million times of all the transistors in a processor. I always thought there was a lot of "art" in the laying of circuit boards (especially when things like 6 or more layers were unheard of or prohibitively expensive). I might have misunderstood you though--yes, when writing to software that interfaces with hardware, there's little art except for what gets thrown at the wall because the hardware documentation is wrong. (been there, done that). Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
Or a mixture of both? and how much in each category? What are your thoughts, and where do you think programming is an art, and where do you think it is a science? An by art, I'm not referring to GUI or web design or any other graphical element. I mean "art" in the inspirational sense of creativity--the "ah ha" experience when writing a nifty function, for example. Personally, I would say that programming is more of an art, but it has the potential to become more of a science. Sort of like being a doctor in the 19th century vs. in the 21st century. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
22.22912% Science 19.35983% Brute Force 19.35983% Skill 18.87821% Art 10.21232% Previous Work 8.22121% Emperical Data 1.71783% Opinion 0.02165% Divine Inspiration But truly, 100% CodeProject ;P - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Obviously an art, as is the job of an engineer. It is was about science, how to explain all these bugs ? :rolleyes: It would be in the same category than astrology :-D
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans
It would be in the same category than astrology Sometimes I think it is! It is was about science, how to explain all these bugs ? Well, that's why I asked the question. If it were more scientific, we would have less bugs. We would have better designs, better implementations. Why can't it be more scientific??? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
Thinking of it as an art does no good and only causes you to come up with useless and silly opinions about programming. I think so too, but if it's a science, shouldn't I be able to demonstratably prove that one implementation is better (or at least equal) to another, without actually doing the implementation???. Or am I mixing metaphors, in the sense that there is really no theoretical aspect to programming--it's all applied? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Too many variables to be able to prove something without testing. Also, since we are talking human's here, we have to test. The lack of testing in computer science is something that frustrates me to no end. People see a problem, devise a solution, and then claim it is better without showing that the solution doesn't cause side effects. But how do you test? :( Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Good morning Marc :-) It should be a combination of both, similar to architecture, say. But unfortunately, it currently seems to be more of a voodoo practice[^] than anything else. I like the analogy of 19C doctors, though.
I'd wear a miniskirt and pimp myself for an extra ten grand a year. - David Wulff
voodoo Love it! Especially the "waving a dead chicken...Things programmers do that they know shouldn't work but they try anyway" Good evening, Taka. I liked Chris Losinger's term "craft". Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
22.22912% Science 19.35983% Brute Force 19.35983% Skill 18.87821% Art 10.21232% Previous Work 8.22121% Emperical Data 1.71783% Opinion 0.02165% Divine Inspiration But truly, 100% CodeProject ;P - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
And the +/- error in these numbers is???? But truly, 100% CodeProject Well said. Well said! Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
Navin wrote: . If you are involved in designing the code, then it is more of an art. I'd say this is where it should be aproached as more of a Science ie. following good design guidelines (exanple avoiding tight coupling and low cohesion) and best know practices. God knows how many late nights at work I've had because our System Architect considered himself an artist. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: because our System Architect considered himself an artist. :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Too many variables to be able to prove something without testing. Also, since we are talking human's here, we have to test. The lack of testing in computer science is something that frustrates me to no end. People see a problem, devise a solution, and then claim it is better without showing that the solution doesn't cause side effects. But how do you test? :( Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
without showing that the solution doesn't cause side effects Have you read the book "Why Technology Bites Back?" Very recommended. The lack of testing in computer science is something that frustrates me to no end. Me too. Something that interests me is how to get programs to test themselves. However, the first step (and also of interest) is tools that can help a programmer to test, and not just debuggers, but things that produce meaningful information (whatever that means). But how do you test? Aye, there's the rub! Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
Or a mixture of both? and how much in each category? What are your thoughts, and where do you think programming is an art, and where do you think it is a science? An by art, I'm not referring to GUI or web design or any other graphical element. I mean "art" in the inspirational sense of creativity--the "ah ha" experience when writing a nifty function, for example. Personally, I would say that programming is more of an art, but it has the potential to become more of a science. Sort of like being a doctor in the 19th century vs. in the 21st century. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
voodoo Love it! Especially the "waving a dead chicken...Things programmers do that they know shouldn't work but they try anyway" Good evening, Taka. I liked Chris Losinger's term "craft". Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Marc Clifton wrote: I liked Chris Losinger's term "craft". Yes, I've always loved the term "craftsman", with its implications of the love we have for our work, the effort we put in over and above just getting something to work and pushing it out the door. I've had people question me why I bother making my comments look nice and lay out my code the way I do - what a total waste of time! But I give a damn about how my code looks, even if doesn't make a difference to how it runs. I make the analogy between when you're out looking to buy a car. If it's dirty and the engine is covered in oil then the chances of the owner having taken care of it and it being in good condition mechanically are not good. I also like the connection with tools. A master carpenter will have the best tools he can afford, is very proud of them and takes care of them. I think the best sign that you've make a good hire is when the new guy spends the first few hours on his first day installing his toolset :-)
I'd wear a miniskirt and pimp myself for an extra ten grand a year. - David Wulff
-
Or a mixture of both? and how much in each category? What are your thoughts, and where do you think programming is an art, and where do you think it is a science? An by art, I'm not referring to GUI or web design or any other graphical element. I mean "art" in the inspirational sense of creativity--the "ah ha" experience when writing a nifty function, for example. Personally, I would say that programming is more of an art, but it has the potential to become more of a science. Sort of like being a doctor in the 19th century vs. in the 21st century. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Neither. It's a skill. :beer:
-
I think it's 10% art, 90% science... 10% art because I prefer well formatted pretty code. ;P
joan_fl wrote: 10% art :wtf: What about the UI?!?! "If it has a nicer splash screen, it's gotta run better!" (Right? :rolleyes: ) Or are you one of those form follows function types... :~ - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
ROFL! :laugh: -- This space for rent.
-
It would be in the same category than astrology Sometimes I think it is! It is was about science, how to explain all these bugs ? Well, that's why I asked the question. If it were more scientific, we would have less bugs. We would have better designs, better implementations. Why can't it be more scientific??? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Marc Clifton wrote: Why can't it be more scientific??? Because we aren't Vulcans :-D Logic is a tool we use, but we aren't logic beings (open any newspaper if you don't believe me ;)) Marc Clifton wrote: We would have better designs, better implementation Perhaps not? I think that intuition is an important part of my creativity, and there's something outside the conceptual field :)
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans
-
Neither. It's a skill. :beer:
It's a skill. Ah. You might have hit upon an assumption I made in the word "programming", in that it involves "problem solving", not just "coding". Would you say that the problem solving side of "programming" can be artistic? Or is problem solving so far outside of the domain of programming that it doesn't really apply to programming? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
Neither. It's a skill. :beer:
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: It's a skill. Are you still working with punch cards[^]? :-D
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans