I dispute that it's the same problem. Graphic art-ing is quite different to programming. One significant difference is that you can just look at a drawing and

I dispute that it's the same problem. Graphic art-ing is quite different to programming. One significant difference is that you can just look at a drawing and know if it's okay or not. There's no test suite for graphic art. Drawing outside the lines is a stylistic choice. Compiler errors are not. The stuff a graphic artist will be fastest at, and for which estimating will be easiest, is stuff they've done thousands of times before. Most programmers aren't writing code they've written thousands of times before, unless they're not paying attention. Out of the creative arts field, I think programming is probably most like creative writing. The grander the program, the grander the equivalent narrative. Unlike a picture, you can't just look at a book and know if it's written properly, you have to read it through. Not only do you have to worry about grammar, you also have to be concerned that the narrative is internally consistent, and that it features the themes, characters, and dramatic situations specified in the brief. Of course, the analogy still isn't exact. A novel doesn't actually have to be internally consistent, and the book doesn't crash if there are spelling mistakes. In fact, many novels written without taking spending the time and money to edit it properly will have plot holes or grammatical errors. A reader can fuzz past it, but a computer can't. Ask a writer how long it will take to write a novel that is totally internally consistent, leaves no plot threads unresolved, and has no grammatical errors. They'll tell you it can't be done to schedule.