[quote author=Tuberload link=board=30;threadid=6759;start=15#msg60188 date=1084588215]Programming is an art, and a language is a tool.[/quote]

I disagree that programming is an art. The more you learn about programming, the more you will realize it is science.

Programming is definitely a science. However, like any science, it may also involve a certain level of creativity, and artistry.

I agree. It's most certainly a science, but it can have artistic aspects - like a particularly creative solution to a problem. I don't think that's very significant though, people can see art in just about everything. It's just a matter of perspective. That said, I do enjoy the creativity of it. The satisfaction of creating something that works is a big part of the appeal.

Is programming really a science?

Science:
[quote]
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
[/quote]

Art:
[quote]
Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms ART, SKILL, CUNNING, ARTIFICE, CRAFT mean the faculty of executing well what one has devised. ART implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power <the art of choosing the right word>. SKILL stresses technical knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. CUNNING suggests ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery plotted with great cunning>. ARTIFICE suggests technical skill especially in imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only by artifice>. CRAFT may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a master goldsmith>.
[/quote]

Summarized: Science is about research, ordering of facts and knowledge. Art is about using your knowledge for skilled work.

Seems to me like programming is actually art...

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60276 date=1084655789]
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>
[/quote]
It seems to fit that just fine, especially the bold parts. You are right that it pertains alot to an art, but there is a reason it's called computer science.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60285 date=1084656774]
but there is a reason it's called computer science.
[/quote]

Because you're learning programming? I think programming is an art, and training is science.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60285 date=1084656774]
It seems to fit that just fine, especially the bold parts. You are right that it pertains alot to an art, but there is a reason it's called computer science.
[/quote]

You're talking about something different now. Computer science may be a science. Programming is still an art. Computer science is much larger than programming.

Programming in general is a science. Your syntactic structure, however, can be art.

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60300 date=1084662412]
Programming in general is a science. Your syntactic structure, however, can be art.
[/quote]

I don't agree. Computer science is a science, you research things that can be useful when programming. The actual programming is not a form of organizing knowledge or researching. Programming is making a program.

Compare it to construction - researching good methods for building bridges and houses, formulas for stress and tensions, that's science. The actual building is not. Construction workers don't do science, they have a craft (synonym, see art).

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60269 date=1084652445]
[quote author=Tuberload link=board=30;threadid=6759;start=15#msg60188 date=1084588215]Programming is an art, and a language is a tool.[/quote]

I disagree that programming is an art. The more you learn about programming, the more you will realize it is science.
[/quote]

The more I program, the more I am able to visualize in my head what I am making. In a sense I create object definitions in my brain, and then start piecing them together to form a single entity. Once I learn a programming technique I don't have to research it anymore, I just have to use it in whatever projects that apply.

I think science may have created the tools for programming, but I just believe they are tools used to make something bigger.

For the same reasons Adron has posted, I think it is more of an art.

Science is a lot more strict, whereas programming is very open. Generally when you're doing science, you do very specific steps for an experiment, but when you're programming you are trying to find an elegant solution to your problem.

Plus, when you program, you are creating something, not researching or anything boring like that.

That's all I have to say on this :)

[quote author=iago link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60450 date=1084743613]Science is a lot more strict, whereas programming is very open. Generally when you're doing science, you do very specific steps for an experiment, but when you're programming you are trying to find an elegant solution to your problem.

Plus, when you program, you are creating something, not researching or anything boring like that. [/quote]

Ah, when I program, I do very specific steps. The steps vary depending on the problem, but the approach is by formula. The refinement of process is by formula. The coding is by pattern. The testing is by formula. Programming is all of that, unless your definition of programming is limited to coding. Some may wish to define other programming lifecycle steps as design & analysis, as debugging and testing, implementation, installation, but they are all part of the programming software lifecycle.

When I am presented with problems, I gather requirements from users in a non-artful way. The questions I ask and feedback I give them are non-artful, and even scientific. Questions are created to harvest answers which can clarify and extend the verbal model of the design, and translate into written language. Once on paper to the satisfaction of design/architecture engineer and customer, we move on to the next stage.

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.

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
[quote author=iago link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60450 date=1084743613]Science is a lot more strict, whereas programming is very open. Generally when you're doing science, you do very specific steps for an experiment, but when you're programming you are trying to find an elegant solution to your problem.

Plus, when you program, you are creating something, not researching or anything boring like that. [/quote]

Ah, when I program, I do very specific steps. The steps vary depending on the problem, but the approach is by formula. The refinement of process is by formula. The coding is by pattern. The testing is by formula. Programming is all of that, unless your definition of programming is limited to coding. Some may wish to define other programming lifecycle steps as design & analysis, as debugging and testing, implementation, installation, but they are all part of the programming software lifecycle.

When I am presented with problems, I gather requirements from users in a non-artful way. The questions I ask and feedback I give them are non-artful, and even scientific. Questions are created to harvest answers which can clarify and extend the verbal model of the design, and translate into written language. Once on paper to the satisfaction of design/architecture engineer and customer, we move on to the next stage.

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.
[/quote]

Hmmm, that is very true. You program on a professional level where as I program for fun. IMO what I am doing is more of an art, but what you said makes sense.

Addition:[quote]Programming is all of that, unless your definition of programming is limited to coding.[/quote]

I consider the actual programming to just be the coding. Doesn't the rest fall more under the definition of "Software Development"?

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
Ah, when I program, I do very specific steps. The steps vary depending on the problem, but the approach is by formula. The refinement of process is by formula. The coding is by pattern. The testing is by formula. Programming is all of that, unless your definition of programming is limited to coding. Some may wish to define other programming lifecycle steps as design & analysis, as debugging and testing, implementation, installation, but they are all part of the programming software lifecycle.
[/quote]

I'd limit my definition of programming to coding, debugging and similars. Pre-studies, customer surveys and that kind of thing doesn't count as programming in my opinion. Those are the things you do before you start the actual programming. Neither do installation or support count, since those are typically done after the programming is complete (not counting that the customer might request additional programming).


[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
When I am presented with problems, I gather requirements from users in a non-artful way. The questions I ask and feedback I give them are non-artful, and even scientific. Questions are created to harvest answers which can clarify and extend the verbal model of the design, and translate into written language. Once on paper to the satisfaction of design/architecture engineer and customer, we move on to the next stage.
[/quote]

That would be the planning you do before you start programming. Another example would be interrogating a secret agent before you start programming a tool to decipher their communications. Torturing prisoners isn't "programming", even if it might be a necessary precondition. What you are speaking of there, I'd call research, planning, software design and architecting.

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60698 date=1084910848]
[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
Ah, when I program, I do very specific steps. The steps vary depending on the problem, but the approach is by formula. The refinement of process is by formula. The coding is by pattern. The testing is by formula. Programming is all of that, unless your definition of programming is limited to coding. Some may wish to define other programming lifecycle steps as design & analysis, as debugging and testing, implementation, installation, but they are all part of the programming software lifecycle.
[/quote]

I'd limit my definition of programming to coding, debugging and similars. Pre-studies, customer surveys and that kind of thing doesn't count as programming in my opinion. Those are the things you do before you start the actual programming. Neither do installation or support count, since those are typically done after the programming is complete (not counting that the customer might request additional programming).


[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
When I am presented with problems, I gather requirements from users in a non-artful way. The questions I ask and feedback I give them are non-artful, and even scientific. Questions are created to harvest answers which can clarify and extend the verbal model of the design, and translate into written language. Once on paper to the satisfaction of design/architecture engineer and customer, we move on to the next stage.
[/quote]

That would be the planning you do before you start programming. Another example would be interrogating a secret agent before you start programming a tool to decipher their communications. Torturing prisoners isn't "programming", even if it might be a necessary precondition. What you are speaking of there, I'd call research, planning, software design and architecting.

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

But isn't art the process of planning your program that you will program? Your ideas? Implementation? etc.

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60698 date=1084910848]
[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=0#msg60457 date=1084746341]
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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg60769 date=1084930487]
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.
[/quote]

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

[quote]
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 [/quote]

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)

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.

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg60803 date=1084965166]
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.
[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote author=cefx link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg62296 date=1085733051]
It's both.

To some, it's art.

To others, it's science.
[/quote]

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

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 :)

[quote author=CrAzY link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63556 date=1086353679]
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 :)
[/quote]
...

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63585 date=1086381864]
[quote author=CrAzY link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63556 date=1086353679]
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 :)
[/quote]
...
[/quote]

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. ;)

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.

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

I think the root question here is unanswerable (intractible? :P). 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.

[quote author=Maddox link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63644 date=1086413111]
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.
[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63653 date=1086426334]
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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote author=CrAzY link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63556 date=1086353679]
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 :)
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63658 date=1086434953]
I thought we were talking about the proccess of programming, not the final program.
[/quote]

The ability to compare/grade programs absolutely (by efficiency / speed) came up as an argument against programming being an art. I tried to show that there are other qualities to programs, qualities that you'll rate according to taste, in a similar fashion to other works of art.

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=30#msg63704 date=1086462020]
[quote author=j0k3r link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=15#msg63658 date=1086434953]
I thought we were talking about the proccess of programming, not the final program.
[/quote]

The ability to compare/grade programs absolutely (by efficiency / speed) came up as an argument against programming being an art. I tried to show that there are other qualities to programs, qualities that you'll rate according to taste, in a similar fashion to other works of art.
[/quote]

Oh, well if we're going to switch to the design elements of visual interface, then yes, I believe that to be as artistic as it is functional. You clearly mentioned earlier that in the discussion of programming we were defining it as the coding phase.

[quote author=Grok link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=30#msg63711 date=1086465145]
Oh, well if we're going to switch to the design elements of visual interface, then yes, I believe that to be as artistic as it is functional. You clearly mentioned earlier that in the discussion of programming we were defining it as the coding phase.
[/quote]

It's the coding phase where are choices being made. Coding as in just translating the representation, say if you're implementing a strictly defined algorithm, or if you've written the application in pseudocode already, is just mechanical work.

But yes, you're right that the main difference between bots probably is just the graphical lull-lull. And that's done by drawing boxes on a form, not by actual programming.

People don't know to appreciate the real art, like Skywing's memory-modifying, api hi-jacking masterpieces.

I disagree. I believe that the design of your program is art. You're designing how it will work, what it will do, how you will deploy it, upgrade it, etc. The coding part of the highly vague definition of "programming" is science. You are following certain procedures, rules, implementing specific algorithms, etc. This pertains to science and not art I believe. However, the pre-coding phase which I believe is art could also be science, in that you are taking certain steps in your design and how you will actual code the program. But the art factor is still there in that you are visualizing your program and designing it how you want to by definition of art.

Art is used to express emotions, convey a feeling or tell a story. Programming does none of these. If you are feeling sad, you cannot realistically write a program that expresses sadness.

Programming is there to provide an abstract layer for people to design applications meant to carry out tasks for business or entertainment. Perhaps games are the closest things to art as far as programs go because they involve characters and stories.

[quote author=Maddox link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=30#msg63755 date=1086473747]
Art is used to express emotions, convey a feeling or tell a story.[/quote]

I don't think that list is exhaustive. Art can be purely decorative too. Since it's not an exhaustive list, I don't think you can use it to say that programming isn't art. Art can be used for those things, or other things. Art doesn't *have* to express emotions.

Programming is having an idea and putting that down in a tangible form. Not all programming is art, just like not all drawing is art. If your program is too well specified before you code it up, it's not art, just like creating ruled paper isn't art. Just mechanical work.

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=30#msg63774 date=1086480504]
[quote author=Maddox link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=30#msg63755 date=1086473747]
Art is used to express emotions, convey a feeling or tell a story.[/quote]

I don't think that list is exhaustive. Art can be purely decorative too. Since it's not an exhaustive list, I don't think you can use it to say that programming isn't art. Art can be used for those things, or other things. Art doesn't *have* to express emotions.

Programming is having an idea and putting that down in a tangible form. Not all programming is art, just like not all drawing is art. If your program is too well specified before you code it up, it's not art, just like creating ruled paper isn't art. Just mechanical work.


[/quote]

So basically if your program is planned, that makes it not art? All programs are mechanical work, that is my point. They are the equivalent to solving a tough math problem.

[quote author=Maddox link=board=30;threadid=6818;start=30#msg63784 date=1086483502]
So basically if your program is planned, that makes it not art? All programs are mechanical work, that is my point. They are the equivalent to solving a tough math problem.
[/quote]

I'm talking about how much is going into the program. There's nothing black or white there. Hmm. Hard to define. Might want to look at copyright law, I think that has something to require a certain amount of creativity for a work to have protection. It's something like that I'm after - if this is an original creative work, or if it's just a translation of an algorithm, or of an exact specification.

And in my experience, a lot of programs aren't mechanical work. Some are, yes, but those I hate to write anyway :P