Programming is not as much fun/more fun than it used to be.

[Kamilche]

... It's the interchange of information
that's important, methinks.

You're right! I don't even bother using 'software' any more. Instead,
I've hired billions of illegal aliens from Sirius to monitor the
incoming data stream and reply appropriately. Since binary is their
native tongue, they're very good at it... and they're much cheaper
than hiring human programmers to write programs that will require
endless maintenance.

On a universal scale, outsourcing is good for Earth's economy. And if
you want to compete, you can go to college on Sirius to receive a
finer education, and and submit a lowball bid to beat their rate. I'm
paying them one dead cat for 10 years of work - can you beat that? One
cat, for all of them.

Honestly, I don't know what all this bellyaching about outsourcing is
about. Anyone should be content with one dead cat for 10 years of hard
labor. It's the programmer's fault for not getting enough education,
and charging too much.

--Kamilche

 

[Victor B. Putz]

You're right! I don't even bother using 'software' any more. Instead,
I've hired billions of illegal aliens from Sirius to monitor the
incoming data stream and reply appropriately. Since binary is their
native tongue, they're very good at it... and they're much cheaper
than hiring human programmers to write programs that will require
endless maintenance.

(chortle)--I think we were talking about different things entirely. I
myself am not a big fan of outsourcing for a number of different
reasons; my point on interchange of information is that connections and
standards tend, in the long run, to be more important than individual
tools, which has nothing that I can think of to do with outsourcing.
Looking at this thread from a distance, I'm not even sure what I
thought that point had to do with the outsourcing argument, but when you
have an attention span the size of the average dormouse like myself, I
suppose it's not surprising that I lost track of this thread a while
ago.

Darn Sirians. If only Sam was here to help us be rid of them...

-->VPutz

 

[Donald Roby]

Does the word 'grok' really exist, or is it purely an artifact of
Heinleins imagination in "Stranger in a Strange Land"?

It really exists. But it didn't before Heinlein wrote that book.

 

[CTips]

However, I think you're comparing two different things, because you
are seeing artists as defining their own work and engineers as working
for spec. Artist, too, can work for spec (and then the constraints
can be VERY severe in terms of money, goals, materials, etc.), and
programmers sometimes define their own work.

Try this: compare artists and engineers working for spec.

most of Michelangelo's output, almost all portraiture (including Mona
Lisa), most of the Dutch school's output, some of Pollack, to pick just
a few.

Or: compare artists and engineers working for love. (-:

Gaugin, van Gogh, some of Pollack, to pick a few.

Not much difference in quality, IMHO, between the bespoke and the
for-love work.

Many of us did! However, I'm not sure I equate *appreciation* of
esthetics with true artistic creativity. Artists create something
from the "whole cloth". Building something from a design--no
matter how elegant, esthetic or pleasing--isn't art (to me!).

Have you seen the steps that were involved in the creation of a carved
statue (such as David) or, worse, a cast statue, particularily a large
one? Or a large fresco? There was a little art, and a lot of design
involved in those processes.

Prototyping (small mockups/cartoons) was necessary. Quite often the
"artist" was merely the lead for a team of assistants (his workshop).
And for things like casting, it was not uncommon to hire outside
specialists (though quite a few "artists" could and did do their own
pouring).

For an example of how much "art" can resemble a programming project,
look at the Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel. It involved an
taking an existing work [IIRC the entire chapel was already painted at
the time he started] and extending it [there was already a painting of a
sky on the ceiling]. He had to redo his scaffolding (literrally). His
first attempt had bugs (well, mildew). A couple of key contributions
were made by his assistants, who get little credit for it. He didn't get
the first part right, but didn't have the time to go back and get it
right. He suffered from creeping featuritis (the original spec called
for the Apostles, but he threw in pretty much the whole of the Old
Testament). His users didn't like the final product, so they had it
modified (basically, they covered up the nude bits).

 

[Chris Sonnack]

Have you seen the steps that were involved in the creation of a
carved statue (such as David) or, worse, a cast statue,
particularily a large one? Or a large fresco? There was a little
art, and a lot of design involved in those processes.

Without the art, David is just another hunk of rock. Or, AT BEST,
just another carving of a naked man.

 

[Mabden]

Without the art, David is just another hunk of rock. Or, AT BEST,
just another carving of a naked man.

Certainly a lot of design. Art is hard work.

Certainly not just another carving. One that shows muscle tension and
simulates reality. Is that art or pure science?

When you go to Florence and see the real thing, you get more than just "a
naked guy". You can "see" that he's resting on one leg. His eyes are
actually made to convey distance. He is sizing up his target and has the
slingshot over the shoulder and the rock in his hand. You can feel that he
is about to unleash the rock - he may or may not kill the giant Goliath -
but he is standing back considering his target. It looks to me like he might
try to just throw the rock, but then his face shows no hurry as he
contemplates his target; sizing him up. He is a pitcher on the mound (for
baseball fans); he can take his time, but an angry mob is waiting to see
what he will do.