There is definitely art in code's creation, but it serves an unambiguous engineering purpose. Like a bridge, or a building, both of which can be visually beautiful, and evoke different feelings in people, yet both have a well-defined structure purpose, and understood principles.
Code can be the same. It serves a specific role, but there may have been many ways to reach that goal. What it does is unambiguous, but there can still be beauty in its form.
Mm, yes I like the bridge analogy better in expressing how writing software is a artform. I think it takes a lot of skill to masterfully write code to perform complex tasks that is coherent and understood quickly.
I saw this quote today that's really sums it up really well:
Any fool can write code that a computer understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand. - Martin Fowler, Author of Refactoring.
There is definitely art in code's creation, but it serves an unambiguous engineering purpose. Like a bridge, or a building, both of which can be visually beautiful, and evoke different feelings in people, yet both have a well-defined structure purpose, and understood principles.
Code can be the same. It serves a specific role, but there may have been many ways to reach that goal. What it does is unambiguous, but there can still be beauty in its form.
Mm, yes I like the bridge analogy better in expressing how writing software is a artform. I think it takes a lot of skill to masterfully write code to perform complex tasks that is coherent and understood quickly.
I saw this quote today that's really sums it up really well:
Yes, good quote. I use it on the chapter "CLEAN CODE AND REFACTORING" of my upcoming book. :)