🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15046.Jul2320.03.1391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>I had a lot of trouble reading the above-referenced article by John
>Burton until I realized what was getting me confused. Namely: Burton
>assumes that ``computer science'' and ``programming'' are the same
>subject, or at least that the former contains the latter. Hardly. As
>many computer scientists have assured me, the topics covered by (for
>instance) Knuth's Art of Computer Programming are quite different from
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the topics of importance in computer science. I think it is Burton who
>is confused.

Bzzzzzzzt!  Wrong.  I would certainly consider data structures, hashing,
numerical analysis, sorting, searching (not to mention the dozens of
other subjects in the existing 3 volume set) very much topics of
importance in computer science.  I think because of the current connotations
of "programming" and "computer science" it may be a poorly titled series
of books, but their topics certainly are relevent to computer science.

As for the debate over art vs. science.  I think that programming is
largely an art, by the standards and approaches used by most of its
practicioners.  On the other hand, I do think there is a science, namely
computer science, that deals with "larger" ideas.  A couple people have
stated (essentially) that: "Since there are many ways of doing things,
and none is neccessarily correct, then programming is an art, and not a
science."  That, to me, seems quite illogical.  There are many ways for
a doctor to treat a patient, or a chemist to develop a compound, or a
structural engineer to design a bridge, and these things are not called
"arts", but rather "sciences."  The idea that some degree of latitude in
how something is done makes it an art doesn't make sense to me.  Surely,
if there was TOTAL latitude (like no foundations, no principles) it
would be an art.  I don't regularly see people forego use of "if"
statements, "while" statements, etc... in the name of art, or for the
sake of creativity.  I think programming does have some foundation (in
fact a very firm foundation), but it is still an art in the sense that
most programmers seem to use more imagination than technique.

I think you will find that as with other arts (such as building furniture
by hand) programming as an art will die out (furniture is now largely
machine made because there are automatic processes for it -- not to say
that it is not DESIGNED by people, it is just not made by people).
Software engineering will mature to the point that people are involved
in the idea-making and the designing, but less involved (if at all) in
the actual construction (programming).  In the case of programming, I 
think it would be difficult to argue that automatic code generators
suffer from any lack of esthetic appeal, especially if they generate
correct, fast code.