← Back to context

Comment by dejected_frog

15 hours ago

I agree that solving logic puzzles is very fun. I even pointed at things such as Advent of Code in my original reply. Computer programming can be very fun and satisfying to do. It is the reason why I became a software developer.

But it is not the same sort activity as writing a short story, or composing a a symphony, or painting a still-life. Those are done with different purposes. Art is something done with the purpose of exploring emotions, aesthetic beauty, question societal norms, etc.

The closest programming gets to that is if you are writing a jingle for advertisement, or drawing a signpost, or writing a technical article.

I disagree. It's not just a logic puzzle. If I haven't communicated that to you, that's also my failure. I've written stories short and long as well. It's a different kind of art.

"Art is something done with the purpose of exploring emotions, aesthetic beauty, question societal norms, etc." I apologize if my emotions and aesthetics are not communicated, but I can only say that they were there. As for societal norms, I doubt that "embedding digital logic in types" is a "norm" of the programming society.

And though it's an appeal to patterns, I will have to bring up the general repeated failure of humanity to recognize art.

  • I apologize if I don't have the same sort of emotional response to embedding linear algebra validation at the compilation step as I do when I watched Mononoke Hime, or when I read The Picture of Dorian Grey.

    While your tale sounded pretty interesting, it is the same sort of interesting as solving a math puzzle. I enjoy math puzzles.

    • Yep, and that's fine. I just think that for the people who do treat something as art, that I'd want to respect their opinion and emotions. Photography was not art, and now is.

      Whatever moves people, however people wish to express themselves, whatever people find beautiful, all that is "art" to me. There's much which is art to others, perhaps, that I would not understand as art for myself.

      2 replies →