Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th Jul 2013 14:06 UTC
General Development "There is a reason I use 'old' languages like J or Lush. It's not a retro affectation; I save that for my suits. These languages are designed better than modern ones. There is some survivor bias here; nobody slings PL/1 or Cobol willingly, but modern language and package designers don't seem to learn much from the masters. Modern code monkeys don't even recognize mastery; mastery is measured in dollars or number of users, which is a poor substitute for distinguishing between what is good and what is dumb. Lady Gaga made more money than Beethoven, but, like, so what?" This isn't just a thing among programmers. The entire industry is obsessed with user numbers, number of applications, and other crap that is meaningless when you consider programming to be art. When I post a new item about some small hobby operating system, the comments will be filled with negativity because it's no Windows or iOS, whereas only ten years ago, we'd have lively discussions about the implementation details. And then people wonder why that scene has died out.
Permalink for comment 568268
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Art or engineering?
by l3v1 on Mon 29th Jul 2013 10:21 UTC in reply to "Art or engineering?"
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

but I am not really sure it qualifies as art


You have to think about it as real life storytelling. Everyone can read or tell a story, but not everyone can tell it in a way to make other awe. For a given coding problem you can create a lot of solutions, but sometimes you stumble upon one or two which you look at and you feel it's "nice". That's when coding becomes art. Something which produces the same results but does it in a "masterful" way, like the difference between an ikea kitchen stool and a craftsman-style armchair.

Reply Parent Score: 4