4 ms·
On further thought, I think my best bet is a framework...? Languages are much harder to get off the the ground, but the true beauty* lies in the amazing ideas i
by RangerScience 10y ago
On further thought, I think my best bet is a framework...? Languages are much harder to get off the the ground, but the true beauty* lies in the amazing ideas in which / with which one thinks while programming.
* As opposed to, eh, merely aesthetic beauty - that code looks good.
- Crespyl 10y agoIf you are ever interested in pursuing aesthetic beauty as a developer, you might enjoy generative/procedural art. Tools like Processing[0] are very accessible even to those with minimal programming experience, and can be very powerful and fluid environments if you have any familiarity with Java or similar languages (or clojure[1]). It's very easy to iterate rapidly (even some live-coding elements) and have a lot of visual feedback, such that it almost feels more like sculpting than a normal programming workflow. [0]https://processing.org/ https://processing.org/ [1]https://github.com/quil/quil https://github.com/quil/quil
- RangerScience 10y agoThank you! But not the thing. I don't want to use software to make something beautiful, or make software that is used to make beautiful things; I want to make beautiful code. Does that make sense? (Unless you think the codebases of these projects are themselves beautiful? Then they might be a The Thing)