Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpopd!daves
From: daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dave Straker)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Creativity in Computing (Was Re: Art vs. Engineering)
Message-ID: <36650011@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>
Date: 16 May 91 16:52:34 GMT
References: <2382@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard CCG-PWD, UK.
Lines: 29

>>This is probably a matter of interpretation. I would define Art as
>>being based in 'feelings' and Science as been based in 'rules'.
>>If there is a key word I would use for Engineering, it would be
>>'pragmatic'. Do what works. This would tend to push it towards
>>the Science end of the spectrum, although there are still elements
>>where 'feeling' is appropriate - such as in the design of a user interface.

>What you're talking about, Dave, is the feelings of the person who is doing
>the engineering.  IMHO, the feelings of the observers are more important in
>distinguishing what is art.  I think that both artists and engineers feel

An intelligent comment; and the observer of a programmer's code is
the maintainer! I have maintained code which I would class as beautiful.
It was well commented, well structured, use good naming, etc. A joy to
maintain. I've also maintained monolithic nightmares - some extremely
'clever' (which the programmer no doubt thought of as 'art').

The art of coding should be separated from the art of specification
and design - which the user of the program encounters. It is quite
possible to have appallingly unmaintainable code in a highly usable
and delightful product.

>Regards, Jane.

Regards to you too :-)

Dave Straker            Pinewood Information Systems Division (PWD not PISD)
[8-{)                   HPDESK: David Straker/HP1600/01
                        Unix:   daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com