Ruminations on the craft
-
I understand what you're saying, I was just stating that I believe any kind of craft that requires either building something or solving problems can become 'an art', where you have people whose talent allows them to rise above the mere knowledge they possess. They can teach their knowledge, best practices and tricks but their talent cannot be passed down.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
You're probably right. I'm just up late.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
When I have to look at their source code, I strongly curse the artists and enjoy the solid, boring coders.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto
Absolutely agree! As someone visiting old code(other people's as well as my own) my one immediate concern is "how easy is this to debug?" Software developers sometimes have a tendency to write code with the mindset that "nothing will go wrong" rather than "how easy will it be to debug when something does go wrong"?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
When I have to look at their source code, I strongly curse the artists and enjoy the solid, boring coders.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto
Yes, yes I do. My personal objective is to code in the most boring possible way. I lost count of the amount of times I cursed my past self for my bright ideas.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Absolutely agree! As someone visiting old code(other people's as well as my own) my one immediate concern is "how easy is this to debug?" Software developers sometimes have a tendency to write code with the mindset that "nothing will go wrong" rather than "how easy will it be to debug when something does go wrong"?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Always strive to write code that is inspectable. In my experience I developed out these few habits: * One statement per line so debuggers will have an easy time setting breakpoints (work enough in embedded and you will sorely miss VisualStudio 6). * No implicit use of function values (i.e.
if (FunctionCall() == something). Apart that it's not MISRA compliant so I'd have to do that anyway, it really helps when inspecting the code with watch windows. * When not counterproductive, always follow the most linear path. It's better tho have two sequential blocks that check different conditions than an absurd boolean expression or a multi-nested if-else block. Madness and unexpected behaviors lie that way. Easy to place breakpoints, easy to lay out watch variables, easy to follow code flow.GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Yes, yes I do. My personal objective is to code in the most boring possible way. I lost count of the amount of times I cursed my past self for my bright ideas.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
den2k88 wrote:
I cursed my past self for my bright ideas
Some times the past is only half an hour; and yesterday is a life time ago
-
When I have to look at their source code, I strongly curse the artists and enjoy the solid, boring coders.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto
-
Absolutely agree! As someone visiting old code(other people's as well as my own) my one immediate concern is "how easy is this to debug?" Software developers sometimes have a tendency to write code with the mindset that "nothing will go wrong" rather than "how easy will it be to debug when something does go wrong"?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
When I was part of the team developing OS400 (for the IBM AS/400 and follow on systems) a key goal for me was first failure data capture - so that if a failure occurred there was enough data being logged to find the cause without having to reproduce the error. It didn't always work, but was a worthy goal.
-
Always strive to write code that is inspectable. In my experience I developed out these few habits: * One statement per line so debuggers will have an easy time setting breakpoints (work enough in embedded and you will sorely miss VisualStudio 6). * No implicit use of function values (i.e.
if (FunctionCall() == something). Apart that it's not MISRA compliant so I'd have to do that anyway, it really helps when inspecting the code with watch windows. * When not counterproductive, always follow the most linear path. It's better tho have two sequential blocks that check different conditions than an absurd boolean expression or a multi-nested if-else block. Madness and unexpected behaviors lie that way. Easy to place breakpoints, easy to lay out watch variables, easy to follow code flow.GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Agreed. I also like to inject descriptive variables. One team member would “format”/delete them away: eg boolean goodName = complicated not so clear expression; if goodName …
I "do" that too except that the meaning of descriptive floats and drifts with time, what's descriptive to me today might not be as descriptive in a month to also me or someone else.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
whats the point you can't c++ your way though life you need to look for the pointers...
Caveat Emptor. "Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
You use the word 'craft'. I like to think of myself as a craftsman. I enjoy, and take pride in, what I do, I like to make a good job of it and I like it when the code is, in some sense, beautiful (it isn't always!)
Paul Sanders. If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter - Blaise Pascal. Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I think you are conflating "hacks," and "clever solutions "with "art." Someone at a high-level of competency with the tools and materials in a certain domain can experience aesthetic qualities when they look at something built using those tools and materials.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I agree that higher skill levels of software engineering cannot be taught. I daresay the same thing can be said about e.g. mechanical engineering. I used to think of it as art, when I was much younger. These days I would mosdef not use the word art to describe it. Just like for example ball-sense cannot be taught (nor be called art). If forced to pick an expression would just call it exceptional ability, even if there are some art-like properties to it. Like watching Roger Federer playing tennis.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I am going to attempt using the cook as some analogy home cooking, and that indie made app you use on your phone. Do you care how its made vs the end result works, tastes great, and minimal issues that you happy to wave off, like the plate a little messy looking. dime a dozen restaurant around the corner. and something you paying money for. again you dont care about the recipe steps, what the back end looks like, as long as comes out presented nice, tastes good and such. End result vs the process of being made. Now if add in that they say will be 30 minutes, and ends up being 2 hours, that starts eating at how the backend and front end tied together now you are a chief and working at a new kitchen. Are the instructions from higher up good, is it layed out in a form that seen at other kitchens meaning minimal effort to get in and start. Why the fish guy plating up before source ready. A great cook cant slot into a kitchen if the kitchen it self not ready. Same for the one creating the menu list, does it make sense, does it fit with ingredients have and staff available to deliver. you want to server 200 people with 3 staff over 2 hours, uhm End result vs needs to integrate and work with others. Sure Bill might make some amazing looking, short code that runs 5% faster, but what good is that if uses patterns that the other 10 behind will end up tripping over themselves because not everyone can figure out regex, when using a string.contains be "good" enough. not sure what the point written, but yes, craft/art sits high for software. is it the be all/end all. Do you need One mechanic that makes custom cars for 200k, or handful of workers that can make run of the mill car that meets and exceeds safty standards.
-
It may not be the most ideal example, but it was the best example I could think of.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Structural engineering needs the same level of artistry at the top levels, but is close enough to what we think we understand to believe it's "just" the boring application of simple principles, just as coding is. Its worth looking at [1] R. E. Bohn, “Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge,” in The Economic Impact of Knowledge, Elsevier, 1998, pp. 295–314. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-7009-8.50022-7. Also in HBR and at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237010832_Measuring_and_Managing_Technological_Knowledge[^] The paper notes how we have a fading level of understanding as we go further away from our own field of understanding. Forth Bridge; Golden Gate; Sydney Opera House ;-)
-
I think you are conflating "hacks," and "clever solutions "with "art." Someone at a high-level of competency with the tools and materials in a certain domain can experience aesthetic qualities when they look at something built using those tools and materials.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
A far more concise and cogent reply than I could muster first thing in the morning, Bill. Thank you.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
A far more concise and cogent reply than I could muster first thing in the morning, Bill. Thank you.
Software Zen:
delete this;Hi, Gary,
Gary Wheeler wrote:
first thing in the morning
Well, I am probably 11 hours ahead of you :) (GMT + 7).
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
