ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> writes: > Programming is neither an art nor a science, but a trade. > > It's not an art in the sense of painting, music, dance, poetry, etc., > because the objective isn't to make a beautiful something, but to give > instructions to a machine to accomplish some useful task. > > It's not a science in the sense of either physics and chemistry > (experimental) or geology or astronomy (observational) or cosmology or > psychology (theoretical) because the objective isn't to test > hypothetical s against data, but to give instructions to a machine to > accomplish some useful task. > > Obviously, it's very much connected with art (e.g., user interface > design) and science (e.g., artificial intelligence) but the practice > of giving instructions to a machine is more like assembling machines > in a factory than the pursuit of an art or the practice of a science.
This is a narrow-minded definition of programming. Watch: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/We-Really-Dont-Know-How-To-Compute Read: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-4.html http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/ -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
