141–150 of 219 posts
That doesn't take anything away from the knowledge work that happens when you develop software, but the code itself is not the art. The solution is the art.
Perhaps like most popular art, it's more about the story behind it.
I'd say this article is a stronger argument that "programming can be a hobby" than "programming is an art". Lots of people do lots of things for enjoyment without a salary, and we tend not to call all of those things an artform. There's lots of competing definitions of art, but I don't think the article has reasonably linked programming to any of them. Maybe there's a thin & stretched link to the concept of a starvin…
And, it goes without saying, programming is just one activity of the many that encompass "software engineering". There are plenty of people whose hobby is programming, but probably far more whose hobby is actually software engineering, and are fine with LLMs handling the programming part.
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing. What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage…
Source please.
I used to really enjoy writing code, to the point where I would have thought of it as art and fine contemplation. 25 years of corporate development beat that enjoyment out of me. AI is just the final nail in the coffin. I have no enjoyment left in coding; I firmly believe the current crop of programming languages will go in the same vein as human written assembly language did. I don't believe the current LLM-based AI…
If AI replaces programming it will indirectly replace a lot of other jobs as well, just by good ol' automation
System design and architecture are the art. Programming is a set of techniques useful in realizing these compositions. I've never once in my life looked at a piece of code and thought "I am in the presence of god". However, the systems composed by code can often elicit this response.
Thinking "I am in the presence of Satan" is quite common, though.
Well, my way of thinking about it is basically that I did not spend my life shiting on over-engineered-bloated-Golberg-machine source code written by so-called programmers to finish my life asking agents to generate these same stuff 10x faster. I love code, you don't, fine. So be it.
While this was true 1+ years ago, the agents don't write bad code anymore. They might not write according to your preferences, but you can also have it adjust to your style. Also, humans didn't evolve to write or read code, even the best programmers are terrible at it from an objective point of view, if we compare it to what is theoretically possible.
Just as they produce writing that isn't structured well for humans, they do the same with code. Sure, if you're willing for that code to be write-only and for agents to be the sole interface through which you interact with it, that works fine, but it is not better than what a professional, skilled human could produce. It's often full of pointless crap and design decisions that over index heavily on local structure that make very little sense when global system structure is considered.
If this were true, there would be a large market for artisan code. There isn't. That doesn't take anything away from the knowledge work that happens when you develop software, but the code itself is not the art. The solution is the art. Perhaps like most popular art, it's more about the story behind it.
Nearly every designer and artist knows that artisan stuff does not bring in the money, but rather commissions for "everyday stuff"; in German there exists the term "Eisdielen-Jobs" [1] ("ice cream parlor jobs") for commissioned, boring, "everyday" design jobs like, as the term implies, creating the design and illustrations for a menu map of an ice cream parlor.
--
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/karriere/illustrator-als-beruf-kreati...
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing. What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage…
Nobody will go to an exhibition or a museum to stare at code like we do with paintings. The public for creative programming is really thin.
Because most code is a stinking pile of shit.
But at least I can easily imagine a world where people indeed do this. :-)
Indeed yesterday I drew some pictures (on my computer) that visualize what actually happens in some rather mathematical algorithms.
I think because a program is textual, people incorrectly draw analogical conclusions for programs based on their experience with written works, in which the medium of expression and the artwork coincide. However, this is not the case for programs because many equivalent programs can produce the same end result (runtime user experience) and we do not typically incorporate the program itself in our judgement of the artistic merits of the runtime experience. In writing the form and content are inextricably linked to a much stronger extent.
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing. What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage…
> back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage Source please.