> Art is something created purely for its aesthetic appeal and to evoke emotions.
What do you think of things like obfuscated Perl, Perl poetry, the Underhanded C Contest, obscure langauges like Brainfuck, 'joke' languages like Intercal or Malbolge, or even, say, Ruby on Rails? Sometimes code is created for a reasons other than functionality, or is functional while making commentary on the world or the way things should be.
Also, languages themselves ooze philosophy. We talk about not 'writing Java in any language,' or how Rails is 'opinionated software,' or how Python is 'batteries included.' Every language expresses its authors viewpoints about the world.
> It also requires far too much prior knowledge to be appreciated by most people.
I didn't think that accessibility was a requirement for art. In fact, it would seem that among certain crowds, work that's too accessible isn't seen as art. My art history is admittedly really poor, but wasn't pop art looked down upon for a while? Besides, you can't possibly tell me that, say, modern art is accessible, yet it's still art.
> The article also assumes a false contradiction between art and science that makes me suspect the author understands neither.
I'm not saying that they're contradictory. As someone else summarized earlier,
> I don't think the author's comparing a bit of C code to a Rembrandt painting in the visual sense, but saying that programmers should embrace those same ideals of creativity, innovation, and fluidity of thought that many artists do.
What do you think of things like obfuscated Perl, Perl poetry, the Underhanded C Contest, obscure langauges like Brainfuck, 'joke' languages like Intercal or Malbolge, or even, say, Ruby on Rails? Sometimes code is created for a reasons other than functionality, or is functional while making commentary on the world or the way things should be.
Also, languages themselves ooze philosophy. We talk about not 'writing Java in any language,' or how Rails is 'opinionated software,' or how Python is 'batteries included.' Every language expresses its authors viewpoints about the world.
> It also requires far too much prior knowledge to be appreciated by most people.
I didn't think that accessibility was a requirement for art. In fact, it would seem that among certain crowds, work that's too accessible isn't seen as art. My art history is admittedly really poor, but wasn't pop art looked down upon for a while? Besides, you can't possibly tell me that, say, modern art is accessible, yet it's still art.
> The article also assumes a false contradiction between art and science that makes me suspect the author understands neither.
I'm not saying that they're contradictory. As someone else summarized earlier,
> I don't think the author's comparing a bit of C code to a Rembrandt painting in the visual sense, but saying that programmers should embrace those same ideals of creativity, innovation, and fluidity of thought that many artists do.