I agree, but I'll go further than you - I don't think this essay is confusing at all. It's simply nonsense - the kind of thing someone clever writes when they're discussing a subject completely outside their area of competence.
CS can be a craft. It's not one of the arts, not even if it's beautifully put together, because the arts are not primarily about technique - they're about capturing and distilling human experiences using allusions and associations to (re)create those experiences. Fluent technique is a useful tool that help with that, but it's not the point.
(Modern art is a bit more limited than that, but that's more or less what art meant for most of Western history.)
The experiences created by the most timeless art are focused, but also ambiguous and complicated. You can get lost in them, and although there's often a clear theme, you can't define the rest of what's happening with absolute final precision.
That's almost exactly the opposite of what good code does. Which is why "That's a clever, clean solution" is an experience that exists in the craftsman's world, and is either peripheral or completely absent from an artist's view.
>I think dropping "science" from "Computer Science" would help immeasurably.
At my university the joke was always that it should be called "Computer Studies." Only a nugget of algorithmic research is genuinely scientific, and that lives in a tiny corner of the rest of the Pure Math. There could be a lot more formal provability, but going down that route would put a lot of programmers out of work, because the level of difficulty is much higher than that needed to crank out some JavaScript.
What's left is usually neither rigorous nor beautiful.
To which I reply: Did you actually read the essay? Since you started the ad hominem argument, I feel free to continue in that vein.
What is interesting is that most "programming" is exactly "capturing and distilling human experiences using allusions and associations to (re)create those experiences". What else is coding a front-end to an application that saves time and/or labour, and/or makes possible things that were, before the program, impossible? An Art, a Craft or a Science? From your very definition, "Art" would be the answer.
And yet, you begin your criticism with "It's simply nonsense"
> I agree, but I'll go further than you - I don't think this essay is confusing at all. It's simply nonsense - the kind of thing someone clever writes when they're discussing a subject completely outside their area of competence.
Whilst I know a little about art, I'm not confident enough in my own experience to put it so strongly.
> because the arts are not primarily about technique
Agreed. I think your subsequent definition of art is a brave one! It's difficult to define, but I get where you're coming from. As you hint at in the subsequent paragraph.
> What's left is usually neither rigorous nor beautiful.
A bit harsh! But yes, there's a large body in the middle that just gets things done.
Sounds like you may be immersed in the arts world, and I've already cited these before, but you may enjoy the Grayson Perry lectures if you haven't listened to them already. I found them refreshingly straight-talking:
> I agree, but I'll go further than you - I don't think this essay is confusing at all. It's simply nonsense - the kind of thing someone clever writes when they're discussing a subject completely outside their area of competence.
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but Knuth does know what art is, as he almost majored in Music. See this for some recent work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_1a6bHGQGo
CS can be a craft. It's not one of the arts, not even if it's beautifully put together, because the arts are not primarily about technique - they're about capturing and distilling human experiences using allusions and associations to (re)create those experiences. Fluent technique is a useful tool that help with that, but it's not the point.
(Modern art is a bit more limited than that, but that's more or less what art meant for most of Western history.)
The experiences created by the most timeless art are focused, but also ambiguous and complicated. You can get lost in them, and although there's often a clear theme, you can't define the rest of what's happening with absolute final precision.
That's almost exactly the opposite of what good code does. Which is why "That's a clever, clean solution" is an experience that exists in the craftsman's world, and is either peripheral or completely absent from an artist's view.
>I think dropping "science" from "Computer Science" would help immeasurably.
At my university the joke was always that it should be called "Computer Studies." Only a nugget of algorithmic research is genuinely scientific, and that lives in a tiny corner of the rest of the Pure Math. There could be a lot more formal provability, but going down that route would put a lot of programmers out of work, because the level of difficulty is much higher than that needed to crank out some JavaScript.
What's left is usually neither rigorous nor beautiful.