Quite entertaining, with the choicest bit being the revelation at the last footnote that Eric Raymond wrote about oral sex techniques. I'll take words I never thought I'd read for 2000, Alex.
This article is trash. His conception of what a painter is is just lifted from mysogynistic pop-culture stereotypes, and his argument essentially rests on his inability to compare the two arts on an abstract level (e.g thinking he's refuted graham just by pointing out that painting is done with materials and programming is done on a machine.)
The article isn't trash. The author knows damn well what painters do and don't do. The "misogyny" is satire aimed at people who don't.
He also specifically calls out Graham for making statements about art history and practice that are factually wrong.
Graham's article isn't just uninformed, it's an example of Developer Exceptionalism - the mistaken belief that knowing how to code qualifies some developers as expert opinionators and practitioners in domains where they've barely reached amateur/dilettante levels of competence.
Art, music, architecture, physics, maths, law, and the rest, all require years of professional dues and effort to reach knowledge and competence - just as coding does.
It's fine having an opinion about them. It's hubris to believe that knowing how to code makes that opinion any more valuable than the opinion of any other untrained non-professional.
OK, I actually do agree with the art history errors he points out–Graham's comment that "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed," for example, is completely ridiculous. And I also totally agree that Developer Exceptionalism is a very irritating thing that Graham is guilty of.
I just don't agree that painting and programming are completely different, and I don't find any of the author's arguments very compelling. I've spent many hours both painting and programming (working towards a BFA in painting and a BA in CS)–the mental states that happen during the creative process, the types of thinking strategies employed, and the problem-solving techniques are actually very similar. They're just abstractly similar–which is why it doesn't really matter that painting takes place through materials and programming doesn't, or that you could substitute painting for any creative discipline that involves dealing with constraints. His arguments are bad, and I hope nobody walks away from that post agreeing that "hackers are nothing like painters."
"The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed," for example, is completely ridiculous
Somewhat offtopic, but we can talk about it anyway, since we are talking about art. (and let's extend the range beyond 1500 a little).
It is true, for example, that Raphael's colors, while beautiful, are surpassed by the incredible range we have today. And certainly, photoshop and modern art gives artists more options in composition, conception, and execution than ever before. However, in terms of raw skill, I don't think anyone surpasses Michaelangelo. Certainly not anyone today (although Rodin and Monet come close).
Richard Gabriel has an interesting and relevant proposal for a Master of Fine Arts in Software program. I think it would actually work better than a MSCS for many people who want to work as developers on regular applications.
The example of the "trapped housewife" on page 6 is a great example of just how spoiled and entitled we've become. We can't imagine doing a routine job every day unless it's somehow fun, to the point where he describes the housewife as "trapped" just because she has to clean the same boring table day after day. Why isn't it rewarding enough to know that I'm cleaning a table so that my children can have a clean place to eat their food, so that they can grow up in a clean and healthy environment? Why do I have to spice up this task to make it more stimulating to my brain? People successfully did boring and tedious tasks for thousands of years without needing to turn them into enjoyable pleasant experiences. Maybe we should learn from them.
"People lived through winters and summers for thousands of years without needing central heating! Maybe we should learn something." Yeah... Those effete workers using the fruit of their increased productivity to better their quality of life. How dare they!...
The statement above is the logical equivalent of your statement. Simply because people survived before <invention> was invented, does not automatically make <invention> bad, excessive, or unnecessary.
There's more to quality of life, than life being convenient, easy, more productive with less effort, and other benefits that modern technology brought us over the past hundred years.
You know the old joke that the three virtues of programmers are laziness, impatience, and hubris? It's a joke for a reason: because it's obvious that these are flaws and that the real virtues behind them are diligence, patience, and humility.
But it's harder than ever before to practice these thanks to technology and the riches of modern life.
How can we practice diligence if doing a full day's worth of work takes about 20 minutes thanks to dishwashers, little vacuum robots, the internet of things, Siri and her siblings, self-driving cars.
How can we practice patience when every task, from traveling to cleaning to getting food to communicating across the globe, is so much quicker to do than when we grew up?
How can we practice humility when we're applauded with thousands of approval-points for posting extremely mediocre content on social media, or when we make disproportionate money for the amount of work we're putting into it?
Quality of life is more than having an easy and comfortable life. I can't imagine it being disputed here that being lazy feels awful and that putting in a hard day's work makes a person feel much more fulfilled, or that being "soft" feels humiliating and that being able to handle a little more discomfort and physical adversity makes one feel a lot more proud to be human.
We can practice diligence by working persistently on things that are more valuable to ourselves and to our society than washing dishes, cleaning floors, making shopping lists, going to libraries for basic research, and spending the time in our self-driving cars reading, or thinking about things other driving.
We can practice patience by using all of the extra time we now have to not rush our actual jobs, to spend time thinking and researching and absorbing new thoughts and trying to create new strategies and techniques and sharing them with the World after plenty of iterations of deliberation, practice and adaptation.
We can practice humility by seeing the reality of who we really are through the data we generate, and stop believing the lies we tell ourselves. Work out, do you? Fitbit says your heart rate only went above 90bpm once in the last month. Don't snack, do you? MFP says you're averaging 600kCals/day in vending machine treats. Making too much money for low effort work? How come you have thousands in debt? Why is 75% of that debt accrued on eating out and fast food according to the app the card company gave you?
Quality of life is measurably improved by improvements in technology. If people decide to abuse it to use the extra capabilities it provides to do inane, stupid, irrational and vain activities, is it the fault of the technology? Really?
I never said technology can't help people improve their quality of life. Only that technology makes it harder not to be lazy, impatient, arrogant, etc.
The fact is that people tend more towards selfishness, laziness, arrogance, impatience, annoyed irritation, etc. than their contrary virtues. Technology won't and can't change that.
And every few months when a new iPhone app hits HN's front page claiming to be the solution to any of these human flaws, I can't help but roll my eyes. FitBits may be able to help a person change their dietary and exercising habits if they're already inclined to, but they can't make that person be inclined to in the first place.
>How can we practice diligence if doing a full day's worth of work takes about 20 minutes
We re-evaluate what a 'full day's worth of work' is. And, hopefully, become more productive.
I don't disagree with (what seems to be) your central point.
Labour-replacement technology reduces the extrinsic value of human industriousness, increasing laziness as a result. That is, assuming we don't compensate by demanding more economic output. But we do demand more... I guess it's not enough to compensate.
I'm reminded of the idea of the 'power process' in the essay The industrial society and its future.
Laziness is a virtue when it enables you to do in 20 lines of code what a diligent programmer takes 200 (or 2000) to do. Impatience is a virtue when it drives you to produce a compiler that does in 30 seconds what the patient programmer waits 30 minutes for. Hubris is a virtue when you're someone like Linus Torvalds, with a vision of something that most would consider insane to tackle.
People successfully did boring and tedious tasks for thousands of years in many cases because they were trapped, quite literally, and did not find their experiences pleasant. History may be written by philosophers and kings, but tedious labor has always been something we don't like, and send to the silent and controlled.
I'm also a fan or science that is presented artfully. I'm not sure those are the best words to describe it, but 'artful' is the feeling I get when watching a Richard Feynman lecture or see an interview where he talks about physics.
Hm - I have read many times that the "premature optimization is the root of all evil" quote was misattributed to Donald Knuth and actually came from C.A.R. Hoare, but here it is in print, and he seems to present it as his own thought. I'm going to go back to attributing this to Knuth. (and pointing out that almost everybody who repeats it is misunderstanding it)
Artistry produces beauty. Craftsmanship produces quality. They are not the same thing, and they are not necessarily in conflict. But don't confuse one for the other.
Interesting observation, but I am not sure what your point is in this thread. Knuth understood the distinction and selected his words intentionally.
"When I speak about computer programming as an
art, I am thinking primarily of it as an art _form_, in an
aesthetic sense. The chief goal of my work as educator
and author is to help people learn how to write _beautiful
programs_."
24 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 62.3 ms ] threadHe also specifically calls out Graham for making statements about art history and practice that are factually wrong.
Graham's article isn't just uninformed, it's an example of Developer Exceptionalism - the mistaken belief that knowing how to code qualifies some developers as expert opinionators and practitioners in domains where they've barely reached amateur/dilettante levels of competence.
Art, music, architecture, physics, maths, law, and the rest, all require years of professional dues and effort to reach knowledge and competence - just as coding does.
It's fine having an opinion about them. It's hubris to believe that knowing how to code makes that opinion any more valuable than the opinion of any other untrained non-professional.
I just don't agree that painting and programming are completely different, and I don't find any of the author's arguments very compelling. I've spent many hours both painting and programming (working towards a BFA in painting and a BA in CS)–the mental states that happen during the creative process, the types of thinking strategies employed, and the problem-solving techniques are actually very similar. They're just abstractly similar–which is why it doesn't really matter that painting takes place through materials and programming doesn't, or that you could substitute painting for any creative discipline that involves dealing with constraints. His arguments are bad, and I hope nobody walks away from that post agreeing that "hackers are nothing like painters."
Somewhat offtopic, but we can talk about it anyway, since we are talking about art. (and let's extend the range beyond 1500 a little).
It is true, for example, that Raphael's colors, while beautiful, are surpassed by the incredible range we have today. And certainly, photoshop and modern art gives artists more options in composition, conception, and execution than ever before. However, in terms of raw skill, I don't think anyone surpasses Michaelangelo. Certainly not anyone today (although Rodin and Monet come close).
https://www.dreamsongs.com/MFASoftware.html
The statement above is the logical equivalent of your statement. Simply because people survived before <invention> was invented, does not automatically make <invention> bad, excessive, or unnecessary.
You know the old joke that the three virtues of programmers are laziness, impatience, and hubris? It's a joke for a reason: because it's obvious that these are flaws and that the real virtues behind them are diligence, patience, and humility.
But it's harder than ever before to practice these thanks to technology and the riches of modern life.
How can we practice diligence if doing a full day's worth of work takes about 20 minutes thanks to dishwashers, little vacuum robots, the internet of things, Siri and her siblings, self-driving cars.
How can we practice patience when every task, from traveling to cleaning to getting food to communicating across the globe, is so much quicker to do than when we grew up?
How can we practice humility when we're applauded with thousands of approval-points for posting extremely mediocre content on social media, or when we make disproportionate money for the amount of work we're putting into it?
Quality of life is more than having an easy and comfortable life. I can't imagine it being disputed here that being lazy feels awful and that putting in a hard day's work makes a person feel much more fulfilled, or that being "soft" feels humiliating and that being able to handle a little more discomfort and physical adversity makes one feel a lot more proud to be human.
We can practice patience by using all of the extra time we now have to not rush our actual jobs, to spend time thinking and researching and absorbing new thoughts and trying to create new strategies and techniques and sharing them with the World after plenty of iterations of deliberation, practice and adaptation.
We can practice humility by seeing the reality of who we really are through the data we generate, and stop believing the lies we tell ourselves. Work out, do you? Fitbit says your heart rate only went above 90bpm once in the last month. Don't snack, do you? MFP says you're averaging 600kCals/day in vending machine treats. Making too much money for low effort work? How come you have thousands in debt? Why is 75% of that debt accrued on eating out and fast food according to the app the card company gave you?
Quality of life is measurably improved by improvements in technology. If people decide to abuse it to use the extra capabilities it provides to do inane, stupid, irrational and vain activities, is it the fault of the technology? Really?
The fact is that people tend more towards selfishness, laziness, arrogance, impatience, annoyed irritation, etc. than their contrary virtues. Technology won't and can't change that.
And every few months when a new iPhone app hits HN's front page claiming to be the solution to any of these human flaws, I can't help but roll my eyes. FitBits may be able to help a person change their dietary and exercising habits if they're already inclined to, but they can't make that person be inclined to in the first place.
We re-evaluate what a 'full day's worth of work' is. And, hopefully, become more productive.
I don't disagree with (what seems to be) your central point.
Labour-replacement technology reduces the extrinsic value of human industriousness, increasing laziness as a result. That is, assuming we don't compensate by demanding more economic output. But we do demand more... I guess it's not enough to compensate.
I'm reminded of the idea of the 'power process' in the essay The industrial society and its future.
I'm also a fan or science that is presented artfully. I'm not sure those are the best words to describe it, but 'artful' is the feeling I get when watching a Richard Feynman lecture or see an interview where he talks about physics.
I guess we’ll never know whether he was right, but all we know is that he used it at least twice in print, while we don’t know any time Hoare used it.
"When I speak about computer programming as an art, I am thinking primarily of it as an art _form_, in an aesthetic sense. The chief goal of my work as educator and author is to help people learn how to write _beautiful programs_."