Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #22501 > unrolled thread

Is Programing Art or Science?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Is Programing Art or Science? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 01:27 -0700
    Re: Is Programing Art or Science? ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 11:49 -0700
      Re: Is Programing Art or Science? "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-02 23:48 +0200
        Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-02 16:52 -0700
          Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2012-04-02 17:04 -0700
          Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-03 10:42 +0100
        Re: Is Programing Art or Science? ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 10:00 -0700
          Re: Is Programing Art or Science? "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-03 20:27 +0200
            Re: Is Programing Art or Science? ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 12:39 -0700
    Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Chiron <chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 04:26 +0000
      Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 06:05 -0400
    Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Torsten Mueller <dev-null@shared-files.de> - 2012-04-03 12:17 +0200
    Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2012-04-03 10:42 +0000
      Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 22:43 +1000
    Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Peter Davis <Peter.Davis@mathworks.com> - 2012-04-03 09:20 -0400
    Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2012-04-03 16:22 +0100
      Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 14:39 -0700
      Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2012-04-04 03:33 -0400
        Re: Is Programing Art or Science? Chiron <chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> - 2012-04-04 17:52 +0000

#22501 — Is Programing Art or Science?

the refreshen of the blood, from Xah's Entertainment Enterprise, i
bring you:

〈Is Programing Art or Science〉
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/art_or_science.html

penned in the year of our lord two thousand and two, plain text
version follows.

--------------------------------
Is Programing Art or Science?

Dear friends,

You mentioned the title of Donald Knuth's magnum opus Art of
Programming in the context of discussion that fringes on whether
programing is science or art. I'm quite pissed off at work at the
moment, so let me take the time to give some guide on this matter to
the daily programers.

At the bottom rung of programers, there's no question about whether
programing is science or art. Because monkey coders could not care
less. These folks ain't be reading this post, for they hardly will
have heard of lisp.

This leaves us with elite programers who have a smattering of
interests on cogitation and philosophical conundrums. So, is
programing a science or art?

For the programing morons, this question is associated with erudition.
It certainly is a hip subject among hackers such as those hardcore
Perl advocates and unix proponents, who would casually hint on such
realization, impressing a sophistication among peers.

Such a question is not uncommon among those curious. For example, “Is
mathematics science or art?”, is the same type of question that has
been broached by dabblers now and then. We can also detect such
dilemma in the titles conferred to blathering computer jockeys: which
one are thee: baccalaureate of science or baccalaureate of arts? It
really makes no fucking difference.

Ultimately, fantastically stupid questions like these are not
discussed by mathematicians nor philosophers. These are natural
language side-effects, trapping dummies to fuzz about nothing; not
unlike quotations.

For these computing jockeys, there remains the question of why Knuth
named his books the “Art” of Computer Programing, or why some
computing luminaries litter the caution that programing is as much a
art as science. What elite dimwits need to realize is that these
authors are not defining or correcting, but breaking precepts among
the automatons in programing industry.

To the readers of hip literature, words like science and art are
spellbinding, and the need to pigeonhole is imminent. Of these
ruminating class of people, the problem lies in their wanting of
originality. What fills their banal brain are the stale food of
thought that has been chewed and spewed. These above-average eggheads
mop up the scholastic tidbits of its day to mull and muse with fellow
eggheads. They could not see new perspectives. Could not understand
gists. Could not detect non-questions. They are the holder and passer
of knowledge, a bucket of pre-digested purees. Their train of thought
forever loops around established tracks — going nowhere, anytime!

So, is programing a art or science? is it art or science? I really
need to know.

 • Theory vs Practice
 • Jargons of IT Industry
 • The Lambda Logo Tour
 • English Lawers

PS don't forget to checkout: 〈From Why Not Ruby to Fuck Python, Hello
Ruby〉 @ http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html

yours humbly,

 Xah

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#22511

Programming is neither an art nor a science, but a trade.

It's not an art in the sense of painting, music, dance, poetry, etc.,
because the objective isn't to make a beautiful something, but to give
instructions to a machine to accomplish some useful task.

It's not a science in the sense of either physics and chemistry
(experimental) or geology or astronomy (observational) or cosmology or
psychology (theoretical) because the objective isn't to test
hypothetical s against data, but to give instructions to a machine to
accomplish some useful task.

Obviously, it's very much connected with art (e.g., user interface
design) and science (e.g., artificial intelligence) but the practice
of giving instructions to a machine is more like assembling machines
in a factory than the pursuit of an art or the practice of a science.

CC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22543

ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> writes:

> Programming is neither an art nor a science, but a trade.
>
> It's not an art in the sense of painting, music, dance, poetry, etc.,
> because the objective isn't to make a beautiful something, but to give
> instructions to a machine to accomplish some useful task.
>
> It's not a science in the sense of either physics and chemistry
> (experimental) or geology or astronomy (observational) or cosmology or
> psychology (theoretical) because the objective isn't to test
> hypothetical s against data, but to give instructions to a machine to
> accomplish some useful task.
>
> Obviously, it's very much connected with art (e.g., user interface
> design) and science (e.g., artificial intelligence) but the practice
> of giving instructions to a machine is more like assembling machines
> in a factory than the pursuit of an art or the practice of a science.

This is a narrow-minded definition of programming.


Watch:  http://www.infoq.com/presentations/We-Really-Dont-Know-How-To-Compute


Read:    Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
         http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-4.html
         http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22558

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:
>ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Programming is neither an art nor a science, but a trade.

Oh, that's why it is tought in trade schools alongside butchery,
plumbing, masonry, and chimney sweeping and why you don't find any
programming classes at university.

jue

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22559

On 4/2/2012 4:52 PM Jürgen Exner said...
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon"<pjb@informatimago.com>  wrote:
>> ccc31807<cartercc@gmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> Programming is neither an art nor a science, but a trade.
>
> Oh, that's why it is tought in trade schools alongside butchery,
> plumbing, masonry, and chimney sweeping

Yes -- back when we opened our first programming/consulting shop in 
1999, our first employee was a trade school grad -- maybe ICS or ICT in 
San Francisco?

> and why you don't find any
> programming classes at university.


Nobody said that the only option to learn programming was in university. 
  Lots of us self-taught well before then....

Emile

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22581

On 2012-04-03 00:52:35 +0100, Jürgen Exner said:

> Oh, that's why it is tought in trade schools alongside butchery,
> plumbing, masonry, and chimney sweeping and why you don't find any
> programming classes at university.

So, you know, no one would do law or medicine at a university.  Oh, wait.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22619

On Apr 2, 5:48 pm, "Pascal J. Bourguignon"
> This is a narrow-minded definition of programming.

Well, that's the point.

If we make a list and include things like:
computer science
software engineering
computer engineering
discrete math
logic
formal methods
web development
computer graphics
information technology
information management
data processing
database management
database administration
network administration
artificial intelligence
... and so on and so forth ...

Some of these involve real art. Some of these involve real science.
Even engineering can be considered as science, in a way, and perhaps
art in a way. All these include programming! HOWEVER, 'programming'
seen as 'talking to a computer' is neither an art nor a science, but
simply a learned skill, like plumbing or cabinet making, or even
medicine or law.

I was a lawyer for 14 years, so I know what I'm talking about: the
practice of law in the ordinary sense is simply that, the practice of
law, and as such it's not an art nor a science, but simply a trade,
albeit a highly skilled and abstract trade. And yes, lawyers can be
artists and scientists, but neither one of these is basic to the
practice of law.

I'm not saying that artists and scientists can't be programmers. Many
of them are. What I'm saying is that you can program a computer (i.e.,
practice programming) without being either an artist or a scientist.

CC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22624

ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> writes:

> On Apr 2, 5:48 pm, "Pascal J. Bourguignon"
>> This is a narrow-minded definition of programming.
>
> Well, that's the point.
>
> If we make a list and include things like:
> computer science
> software engineering
> computer engineering
> discrete math
> logic
> formal methods
> web development
> computer graphics
> information technology
> information management
> data processing
> database management
> database administration
> network administration
> artificial intelligence
> ... and so on and so forth ...
>
> Some of these involve real art. Some of these involve real science.
> Even engineering can be considered as science, in a way, and perhaps
> art in a way. All these include programming! HOWEVER, 'programming'
> seen as 'talking to a computer' is neither an art nor a science, but
> simply a learned skill, like plumbing or cabinet making, or even
> medicine or law.
>
> I was a lawyer for 14 years, so I know what I'm talking about: the
> practice of law in the ordinary sense is simply that, the practice of
> law, and as such it's not an art nor a science, but simply a trade,
> albeit a highly skilled and abstract trade. And yes, lawyers can be
> artists and scientists, but neither one of these is basic to the
> practice of law.
>
> I'm not saying that artists and scientists can't be programmers. Many
> of them are. What I'm saying is that you can program a computer (i.e.,
> practice programming) without being either an artist or a scientist.


Well, of course.  Those words designate different categories that are
not exclusive.  So it's meaningless to say that programming is or is not
art or science.

Art is something that comes from a quality of the would-be artist.

Science is something that comes from a methodology applied by the
would-be scientist.

Program is something that comes from the work applied by the would-be
programmer.

You can be both a programmer and artist and produce a program
arstistically (like a torero), or an artistic program (like a painter).

You can be both a programmer and scientist, and produce a program
scientifically (like a mathematician), or a science program (like a
physicist). 

You can be both a scientist and artist and produce science artistically,
or art scientifically.

You can be the three, producing programs artistically and
scientifically, or producing artisctic programs scientifically, or
producing scientific programs artistically, etc.

When you produce programs scientifically and artistically you're a 
hacker.

It could be nice to produce scientific programs scientifically, and even
better if your scientific programs are also artistic (so that you can
show the science in an interesting way to the public).
http://www.ted.com/talks/joann_kuchera_morin_tours_the_allosphere.html

You can also produce art programmatically.  For that you need to be both
an artist or a programmer. http://animusic.com/ Or you may try to split
the qualities among a team like at Pixar producing artistic movies
programmatically and scientifically like
http://www.pixar.com/featurefilms/index.html
http://graphics.pixar.com/library/UntanglingCloth/paper.pdf


And the best is to produce scientific programs that are artistic,
scientifically and artistically.  
Then you're an scientifico-artistico-hacker.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22628

“Beauty is more important in computing than anywhere else in
technology because software is so complicated. Beauty is the ultimate
defence against complexity.” --David Gelernter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22568

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:27:16 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:

> 〈Is Programing Art or Science〉

Why is this question important?

-- 
You are confused; but this is your normal state.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22582

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Chiron
<"chiron613.no.spam."@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>> 〈Is Programing Art or Science〉
>
> Why is this question important?

That's the whole point of the article/email. Xah basically says "This
question is stupid and only stupid people care about it."

You probably should have read the email before replying to it.

-- Devin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22583

Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, is programing a art or science? is it art or science? I really
> need to know.

Sience? Almost never.

It's handcraft.

Seldom, in very rare cases, it's true art for a very limited audience,
mostly it's routine, and in many cases it's also idiocy.

T.M.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22584

Hi, Xah,

In comp.emacs Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> For these computing jockeys, there remains the question of why Knuth
> named his books the ?Art? of Computer Programing, or why some
> computing luminaries litter the caution that programing is as much a
> art as science. What elite dimwits need to realize is that these
> authors are not defining or correcting, but breaking precepts among
> the automatons in programing industry.

He was using art in the sense of "the exercise of human skill (as
distinguished from nature)".  That's the second definition in my
dictionary.  When people talk about, for example, the art of painting
water colours, they mean the techniques of mixing paints, depicting
objects on paper, etc.  They are not referring to the artistic value of
the painting painted.

> yours humbly,
> 
> Xah

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22589

Programming is neither Art nor Science

It's practically maths

[pun intended]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22592

On 3/30/2012 4:27 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
> Is Programing Art or Science?
>

Programming itself is a bit like being a natural language translator for 
an autistic person. You have to understand the "message" to be 
communicated, and then interpret it *very* literally for the listener.

Note that programming is just one of a set of activities and skills that 
are part of software engineering.  Others include UI design (which 
combines visual design, psychology, etc.), software architecture (which 
is like ... well, architecture) and various other skills.

Collectively, "engineering" is the best catch-all description.  Is 
building a bridge art or science?  A little of both, and some other 
things as well.

-pd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22609

Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> For example, “Is mathematics science or art?”, is the same type of
> question that has been broached by dabblers now and then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

HTH.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22639

On Apr 3, 8:22 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > For example, “Is mathematics science or art?”, is the same type of
> > question that has been broached by dabblers now and then.
>

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

this is the best reply in this thread!

 Xah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22661

In <87hax0suun.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>, on 04/03/2012
   at 04:22 PM, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> said:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

Do you need the Quadrivium or is the Trivium enough for programming
<g, d & r>?

If the term "art" is good enough for Knuth it's good enough for me.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22666

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:33:24 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

> If the term "art" is good enough for Knuth it's good enough for me.

I think that may be the most intelligent comment so far...


-- 
Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web