2 ms·
I completely agree. But I had to poke this with a stick: "Without exploring feeling, meaning, and imagination" (a) you don't need to drop practical exercises to
by lstamour 12y ago
I completely agree. But I had to poke this with a stick: "Without exploring feeling, meaning, and imagination" (a) you don't need to drop practical exercises to add theory and (b) how does that compare to other types of "creating". I can't remember the last time I asked myself if I had enough "imagination" in my software code, yet it's true I expect that nearly everywhere else in anything I do. I wonder if this is part of the relative immaturity of software development. I mean, in math, sciences and design, all perhaps far from being "fine art," I can think of plenty of examples where imagination plays a role, if minor. But outside of design or UX, the closest code gets to imagination is perhaps UML, and that ... did not succeed very much. To counter my own argument, after thinking about it more, perhaps refactoring and TDD introduce a bit of imagination -- writing code that doesn't yet work, doesn't yet exist, or can be moulded into something else gradually, instead of treating a first draft as perfect.
... whatever. I've thought about this too long here. Moving on. Can you tell I had two artists as parents? And they both had degrees from the same university yet very different opinions on their art. I can't pretend to understand, I figure, without the background. But I like to consider whatever I'm doing to be in some small part, art. I don't think it's a crime to find math artistic, even. I happen to be in undergraduate Digital Media, half fine arts, half computer science courses. I'm thoroughly confused, these days, because it's untamed territory to combine the two in ways that give both an even shake. I've yet to fully embrace the fine arts side, particularly creating performance art, but maybe I've never taken it seriously yet. I've never liked how subjective its evaluations can be. Go figure, I've subjective evaluations at work all the time, and that's as procedural as it gets. Life is complicated, art reflects that.
- noelwelsh 12y agoThere certainly is imagination in creating software, from deciding on architecture, to micro-refactoring and optimisation. If you just work on the typical websites you perhaps don't see this, because the domain is very well explored at this point. You have frameworks that solve most common problems and you just need to paint within the lines they draw. Hence the emphasis on UX as that is where there is still rapid change and the chance to innovate. However, change your requirements and things get interesting. What if you want your website to respond within 50ms to anyone anywhere in the world? Suddenly you have a very interesting problem. You had better get creative with your architecture, because a bunch of stateless webservers talking to a relational database isn't going to cut it.