
Computer Programming as an Art (1974) [pdf] - reese_john
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/1974/12/11626-computer-programming-as-an-art/pdf
======
nradov
Richard Gabriel has an interesting and relevant proposal for a Master of Fine
Arts in Software program. I think it would actually work better than a MSCS
for many people who want to work as developers on regular applications.

[https://www.dreamsongs.com/MFASoftware.html](https://www.dreamsongs.com/MFASoftware.html)

------
clifanatic
Hm - I have read many times that the "premature optimization is the root of
all evil" quote was misattributed to Donald Knuth and actually came from
C.A.R. Hoare, but here it is in print, and he seems to present it as his own
thought. I'm going to go back to attributing this to Knuth. (and pointing out
that almost everybody who repeats it is misunderstanding it)

~~~
Someone
That’s because Knuth at some time thought he had it from Hoare. See
[https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/premature-
optimi...](https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/premature-optimization-
is-the-root-of-all-evil/)

I guess we’ll never know whether he was right, but all we know is that he used
it at least twice in print, while we don’t know any time Hoare used it.

------
sdegutis
The example of the "trapped housewife" on page 6 is a great example of just
how spoiled and entitled we've become. We can't imagine doing a routine job
every day unless it's somehow _fun_ , to the point where he describes the
housewife as "trapped" just because she has to clean the same boring table day
after day. Why isn't it rewarding enough to know that I'm cleaning a table so
that my children can have a clean place to eat their food, so that they can
grow up in a clean and healthy environment? Why do I have to _spice up_ this
task to make it more stimulating to my brain? People successfully did boring
and tedious tasks for _thousands of years_ without needing to turn them into
enjoyable pleasant experiences. Maybe we should learn from them.

~~~
s_q_b
"People lived through winters and summers for _thousands of years_ without
needing central heating! Maybe we should learn something." Yeah... Those
effete workers using the fruit of their increased productivity to better their
quality of life. How dare they!...

The statement above is the logical equivalent of your statement. Simply
because people survived before <invention> was invented, does not
automatically make <invention> bad, excessive, or unnecessary.

~~~
sdegutis
There's more to _quality of life_ , than life being convenient, easy, more
productive with less effort, and other benefits that modern technology brought
us over the past hundred years.

You know the old joke that the three virtues of programmers are laziness,
impatience, and hubris? It's a joke for a reason: because it's obvious that
these are _flaws_ and that the real virtues behind them are diligence,
patience, and humility.

But it's harder than ever before to practice these thanks to technology and
the riches of modern life.

How can we practice diligence if doing a full day's worth of work takes about
20 minutes thanks to dishwashers, little vacuum robots, the internet of
things, Siri and her siblings, self-driving cars.

How can we practice patience when every task, from traveling to cleaning to
getting food to communicating across the globe, is so much quicker to do than
when we grew up?

How can we practice humility when we're applauded with thousands of approval-
points for posting extremely mediocre content on social media, or when we make
disproportionate money for the amount of work we're putting into it?

Quality of life is more than having an easy and comfortable life. I can't
imagine it being disputed here that being lazy feels awful and that putting in
a hard day's work makes a person feel much more fulfilled, or that being
"soft" feels humiliating and that being able to handle a little more
discomfort and physical adversity makes one feel a lot more proud to be human.

~~~
PaulRobinson
We can practice diligence by working persistently on things that are more
valuable to ourselves and to our society than washing dishes, cleaning floors,
making shopping lists, going to libraries for basic research, and spending the
time in our self-driving cars reading, or thinking about things other driving.

We can practice patience by using all of the extra time we now have to not
rush our actual jobs, to spend time thinking and researching and absorbing new
thoughts and trying to create new strategies and techniques and sharing them
with the World after plenty of iterations of deliberation, practice and
adaptation.

We can practice humility by seeing the reality of who we really are through
the data we generate, and stop believing the lies we tell ourselves. Work out,
do you? Fitbit says your heart rate only went above 90bpm once in the last
month. Don't snack, do you? MFP says you're averaging 600kCals/day in vending
machine treats. Making too much money for low effort work? How come you have
thousands in debt? Why is 75% of that debt accrued on eating out and fast food
according to the app the card company gave you?

Quality of life is measurably improved by improvements in technology. If
people decide to abuse it to use the extra capabilities it provides to do
inane, stupid, irrational and vain activities, is it the fault of the
technology? Really?

~~~
sdegutis
I never said technology can't _help_ people improve their quality of life.
Only that technology makes it harder _not_ to be lazy, impatient, arrogant,
etc.

The fact is that people tend more towards selfishness, laziness, arrogance,
impatience, annoyed irritation, etc. than their contrary virtues. Technology
won't and can't change that.

And every few months when a new iPhone app hits HN's front page claiming to be
the solution to any of these human flaws, I can't help but roll my eyes.
FitBits may be able to _help_ a person change their dietary and exercising
habits if they're already inclined to, but they can't make that person be
inclined to in the first place.

------
SuperPaintMan
>Dabblers & Blowhards (2004) [Response to Hackers & Painters] >
[http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm](http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm)

~~~
zaaakk
This article is trash. His conception of what a painter is is just lifted from
mysogynistic pop-culture stereotypes, and his argument essentially rests on
his inability to compare the two arts on an abstract level (e.g thinking he's
refuted graham just by pointing out that painting is done with materials and
programming is done on a machine.)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The article isn't trash. The author knows damn well what painters do and don't
do. The "misogyny" is satire aimed at people who don't.

He also specifically calls out Graham for making statements about art history
and practice that are factually wrong.

Graham's article isn't just uninformed, it's an example of Developer
Exceptionalism - the mistaken belief that knowing how to code qualifies some
developers as expert opinionators and practitioners in domains where they've
barely reached amateur/dilettante levels of competence.

Art, music, architecture, physics, maths, law, and the rest, all require years
of professional dues and effort to reach knowledge and competence - just as
coding does.

It's fine having an opinion about them. It's hubris to believe that knowing
how to code makes that opinion any more valuable than the opinion of any other
untrained non-professional.

~~~
zaaakk
OK, I actually do agree with the art history errors he points out–Graham's
comment that "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed,"
for example, is completely ridiculous. And I also totally agree that Developer
Exceptionalism is a very irritating thing that Graham is guilty of.

I just don't agree that painting and programming are completely different, and
I don't find any of the author's arguments very compelling. I've spent many
hours both painting and programming (working towards a BFA in painting and a
BA in CS)–the mental states that happen during the creative process, the types
of thinking strategies employed, and the problem-solving techniques are
actually very similar. They're just abstractly similar–which is why it doesn't
really matter that painting takes place through materials and programming
doesn't, or that you could substitute painting for any creative discipline
that involves dealing with constraints. His arguments are bad, and I hope
nobody walks away from that post agreeing that "hackers are nothing like
painters."

~~~
ktRolster
_" The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed," for
example, is completely ridiculous_

Somewhat offtopic, but we can talk about it anyway, since we are talking about
art. (and let's extend the range beyond 1500 a little).

It is true, for example, that Raphael's colors, while beautiful, are surpassed
by the incredible range we have today. And certainly, photoshop and modern art
gives artists more options in composition, conception, and execution than ever
before. However, in terms of raw skill, I don't think anyone surpasses
Michaelangelo. Certainly not anyone today (although Rodin and Monet come
close).

------
pklausler
Artistry produces beauty. Craftsmanship produces quality. They are not the
same thing, and they are not necessarily in conflict. But don't confuse one
for the other.

~~~
kmote00
Interesting observation, but I am not sure what your point is in this thread.
Knuth understood the distinction and selected his words intentionally.

"When I speak about computer programming as an art, I am thinking primarily of
it as an art _form_, in an aesthetic sense. The chief goal of my work as
educator and author is to help people learn how to write _beautiful
programs_."

~~~
pklausler
If you're getting paid to write quality software, don't instead write software
that's only beautiful.

~~~
couchand
To a programmer's aesthetic it seems they're usually the same.

------
rpeden
I think Knuth makes some good points.

I'm also a fan or science that is presented artfully. I'm not sure those are
the best words to describe it, but 'artful' is the feeling I get when watching
a Richard Feynman lecture or see an interview where he talks about physics.

