ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> writes: > On Apr 2, 5:48Â 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 {}. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
