nesdev.org

tokumaru wrote:Interesting... Does that code work though? If you consider that bits 1 through 7 of $4016 can return open bus and Famicom controller data, these could easily screw up previously read button states.

Art is supposed to make you think!

Point of the below rant: Typing code into a machine is not art, it's translation. The design and implementation of a system is very much art, as it reflects the influences, experiences and ideals of the designer. Much the same way that the assembly line worker at the Gibson factory is not considered an artist, but Ted McCarty (the designer of the Les Paul) is considered an artist (who's medium was acoustic engineering, and who's canvas was a guitar).

Shiru wrote:Programming is much more rules and templates-based than most of things that are considered an art. The same thing could be identically done by many different programmers.

Are you a manager? I hope not

That's the kind of attitude that is very detrimental to software engineering as a whole. No two people are going to implement something identically if they actually design the thing.

If you give two people the same psuedo-code (which is what my company thinks a technical design document aught to consist of) and ask them to implement that pseudo-code in the same language, then yes, the code they produce will be almost identical. But at that point the programmer is the one writing the pseudo-code. The two people are just translators.

And I suppose that's what really chaps my butt about the attitude many people have towards software development. Programmers are often expected to be little more than software translators.

Very interesting!

Shiru wrote:Programming is much more rules and templates-based than most of things that are considered an art. The same thing could be identically done by many different programmers. This leaves not much place for artistic expression. You can easily change a programmer on a project, end user barely can notice it (only if you change a pro to someone not skilled enough who don't really able to do the job properly). If you change an artist or a musician, it is easier to notice.

That depends on who's appreciating the work. Most people can judge visual and audio content, but it takes a programmer to appreciate the work of another. I just love to see clever solutions to logic problems, like when someone rewrites a 20-line subroutine in just 5 lines, using less RAM and less CPU time.

I love it when someone re-implements a 5-line subroutine in 20 lines that are more readable and maintainable. But then again I'm in business software

I never said anything about sacrificing readability and maintainability, as I value those things as well.

Your right, bad assumption on my part. More verbose does not mean more readable.

In modern pro development there is no such a thing as design on the fly. You have specs: if user inputs 5, output should be 10. There could be difference in implementation, but the result is the same regardless of programmer. If result is not the same, a programmer is failed to do his job.

I guess that some people would like to consider programming at whole as an art as a prove that they are special and unique, that's why they defend this concept regardless of any arguments, without attempts to actually analyze it, and despite it is a complex question without a clear answer.

If we take a definition of the art from english wikipedia:

Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery.

With this definition programming could be an art easily.

This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions.

With this definition programming has much less chances to be an art. Maybe certain things on demoscene or some other abstract programming-related art.

In russian wikipedia there are two extra definitions:

As the result of evolution of social aesthetic standarts and values, any activity that leads to creation of aesthetically expressive forms could be now considered an art

Most of the time programmers aren't doing that. The triangle example is probably fails under this definition.

In scale of the whole society, the art is a special kind of understanding and reflection of reality, a form of an artistic activity of social consciousness, and part of spiritual culture of a human and humanity at whole, multiform result of all the creative activity of all generations

I don't think this really means anything certain, despite being supported by few sources. It only demonstates that people really aren't agreed what the art is. This definition is even recursive, 'an art is .. something artistic'.


My vision is that the initial question incorrect, and leads to more confusion. Is programming an art in general? Not all the programming is an art, so answer is no, but some programming could be, so answer is yes. Is programming could be an art? Yes, definitely.

Shiru,

I don't mean designing on the fly, I mean designing in general. I feel that the design of a system is an expression of the designer, and therefor artful under some definitions.

Really I agree with your point that the question is flawed. Programming itself is not the art form, just as applying paint to canvas is not in itself artistic. The programs we create and the paintings we paint are what can be artistic.

qbradq wrote: I feel that the design of a system is an expression of the designer,

Which is why the 2600 design is retarded...

3gengames wrote:Which is why the 2600 design is retarded...

Why don't you try to make something even half as functional in just 6000 transistors, hmmmm?

lidnariq wrote:

3gengames wrote:Which is why the 2600 design is retarded...

Why don't you try to make something even half as functional in just 6000 transistors, hmmmm?

The programmers made it functional....

Programming is art? I think partially is

3gengames wrote:

qbradq wrote: I feel that the design of a system is an expression of the designer,

Which is why the 2600 design is retarded...

!! WARNING !! THREAD HIJACK DETECTED

RushJet1 wrote:

3gengames wrote:

qbradq wrote: I feel that the design of a system is an expression of the designer,

Which is why the 2600 design is retarded...

!! WARNING !! THREAD HIJACK DETECTED

Haha yeah, should probably avoid that. But anyway, I guess programming it's self isn't art, but the output can be, although I do believe the code created is sometimes art no matter what the output is.

UncleSporky wrote:

And then someone complains when I post an image... much like this one to illustrate a situation. Funny or seriously... Aw!