Programming: Art or Science?

[Grok]

At every level of programming, I am doing science, but due to the loose definition of "arts", I am practicing my art.  But that art is science, whereas art which the question references is not science.

After seeing your definition of programming, I suppose it being science makes sense to you. You are doing research at that stage. I just don't call that part programming. To me programming starts after the research and architecture is complete.

Then from my perspective, any possible "arts" you would have done were during architecture and detailed design.  Coding from a detailed design is not interesting, and for seasoned professionals is often a matter of applying the learned patterns with some glue for coupling.

So architecture and design could be art, while programming/coding seems to be even more science than I had thought.

[Adron]

Then from my perspective, any possible "arts" you would have done were during architecture and detailed design.  Coding from a detailed design is not interesting, and for seasoned professionals is often a matter of applying the learned patterns with some glue for coupling.

So architecture and design could be art, while programming/coding seems to be even more science than I had thought.

Ah, that all depends on how you program. If your design is detailed enough that there be no creativity left when you start coding, then it's just a mechanical task of translating information. Which isn't science either.

To me, programming starts when you write algorithms. It doesn't start when you draw a GUI, or when you design a database, or when you ask your customer what the program is supposed to do. Those tasks can be done by GUI designers, database designers and customer researchers. They don't take a real programmer.

Since I don't think it's been posted yet, I'll dig up a definition for programming.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=programming

Main Entry: 2program
Variant(s): also programme
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -grammed or -gramed; -gram·ming or -gram·ing
1 a : to arrange or furnish a program of or for : BILL b : to enter in a program
2 : to work out a sequence of operations to be performed by (a mechanism) : provide with a program
3 a : to insert a program for (a particular action) into or as if into a mechanism b : to control by or as if by a program c (1) : to code in an organism's program (2) : to provide with a biological program <cells programmed to synthesize hemoglobin>
4 : to predetermine the thinking, behavior, or operations of as if by computer programming <children are programmed into violence -- Lisa A. Richette>
- pro·gram·ma·bil·i·ty  /(")prO-"gra-m&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- pro·gram·ma·ble  /'prO-"gra-m&-b&l/ adjective or noun

I suppose what I think mostly of as programming is the 2), to work out a sequence of operations to be performed. (to accomplish the particular task that the customer research team found was needed)

[Grok]

You and I are well beyond needing webster to define for us what programming is or is not.  Webster should be so lucky as to have us help write the definition.

I think what you are doing as a hacker (using our previous forum definition) is patterning when specifications are lacking.  If, when the business systems analyst is done talking to the customers, the design still looks like swiss cheese, your mind is capable of visualizing it complete, without the holes.  Then you apply those algorithms which you have studied.  Even when you are creating algorithms, aren't you applying ordered though to a precisely-considered requirement?

Whereas in art, the artist is creating something with feeling.  The work is most often refined until it generates and emotion in the artist or the viewer.  If the art is a success, it probably has a focused range of emotive qualities.  Programming does not produce emotion in the viewer, except maybe open-source, because the viewers usually never see the code, only the output of the factory which the code becomes once you pump data through it.

[Adron]

You and I are well beyond needing webster to define for us what programming is or is not.  Webster should be so lucky as to have us help write the definition.

Ah, but noone is ever beyond looking for advice in definitions, as definitions are just definitions. Definitions don't follow from knowledge. They have to be specified. Yes, we could pick our own definition, and from having different definitions there'll be disagreement. Better to look for common definitions, try to use those, or document where your definition is different from the standard definition.

What I think makes programming art is the creativity involved - creativity generating a something. If the programming completely lacks creativity, and doesn't require skill, then it's no art. In that case, either the actual programming was done earlier to specify things in detail beforehand, or the programming is just too simple.

[cefx]

At present, I'm unable to affirmatively comment.  I'm not a programmer, I'm a learner.

I will, however, speculate:

It's both.

To some, it's art.

To others, it's science.


What programming will be to me in the future will vary upon my experiences and what I learn.
Ergo, what it is to you would be dependant on your environment, your erudition, and your experiences.
I don't think any dictionary definition or peer consideration change that.

Ah well, it's 5:30am...time to close the book and pass out.

Lates.

[Adron]

It's both.

To some, it's art.

To others, it's science.

I think you're right. I hope it'll stay art to me.

[CrAzY]

Art and Science.... what the hell?

Programming is math morons.  If you suck at math, normally you suck at programming.

If you want to really get to the source... it is it's own subject! Not art, Not science, not anything but programming.

Reflexive Postulate

[j0k3r]

Art and Science.... what the hell?

Programming is math morons.  If you suck at math, normally you suck at programming.

If you want to really get to the source... it is it's own subject! Not art, Not science, not anything but programming.

Reflexive Postulate

...

[Mephisto]

Art and Science.... what the hell?

Programming is math morons.  If you suck at math, normally you suck at programming.

If you want to really get to the source... it is it's own subject! Not art, Not science, not anything but programming.

Reflexive Postulate

...

He's right in his own right.  In the sense that programming is a subject, something you must learn sperately from everything else.  I believe he is on the level of understanding that art is painting and is a subject you take in school as well as science.  But we know better than that.  

[Maddox]

I'd say it is a science because it follows laws and principles. Programs serve purposes -- they are designed to carry out tasks. This holds true with TV's, microwaves, and phones, but nobody considers these things art. In art, there really is no such thing as "better." In programming, however, there is. A program can run faster, use less overhead, or be written with less code, etc. Using those, a program can be defined as "better" when comparing programs that do the same job.

[Arta]

Lots of art follows principles too, alhough not so much laws.

I think the root question here is unanswerable (intractible? ). It's equally as much 'what consitutes art?' as it is 'is programming art?', and people have been arguing about that one since the dawn of time.

[Adron]

In programming, however, there is. A program can run faster, use less overhead, or be written with less code, etc. Using those, a program can be defined as "better" when comparing programs that do the same job.

That's true, but programs that do the same job are very limited. That would typically be a representation of a math algorithm, according to a very strict specification. When comparing that to drawn art, it's like drawing ruled paper or graph paper. If you don't have such a strict specification, two different programs will hardly ever be doing exactly the same job.

Now, can you tell me what's different between all the bots written by the people who visit these forums? Can you define which of these is "better"? I cannot. It's a matter of taste, very much like looking at a painting.

[Arta]

I see it more this way: An algorithm can be very satisfying. It can solve a problem in a manner that is pleasing to the programmer. It can be elegent. These are all artisitic qualities.

There was a saying among British WW2 aircraft designers - the people who designed the Spitfire and the Lancaster Bomber - that if a plane looks right, it probably is. I don't think it's a coincidence that a solution of high scientific quality usually has some artisitic qualities too. The fact that you might have to be highly qualified to appreciate them is neither here nor there.

[j0k3r]

Now, can you tell me what's different between all the bots written by the people who visit these forums? Can you define which of these is "better"? I cannot. It's a matter of taste, very much like looking at a painting.

I thought we were talking about the proccess of programming, not the final program.

Both sides have strong arguments, and as always it all comes down to definitions. I don't think it actually needs to be either an art or a science either, because programming and art/science are different things.

[Grok]

Art and Science.... what the hell?

Programming is math morons.  If you suck at math, normally you suck at programming.

If you want to really get to the source... it is it's own subject! Not art, Not science, not anything but programming.

Reflexive Postulate

Wow, we're morons.  Nice summation.  Too bad your logic stinks.

A great many people who excel at music (and not math), realize there's better money in computers, become excellent programmers.  Despite its mathematical attributes, I doubt you'll go so far out on this limb as to declare music as non-artistic.