joel@peora.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) (10/31/89)
In article <7476@pixar.UUCP>, good@pixar.uucp ("Oedipus, schmedipus. As long as he loves his mother.") writes: > > Cute. I see the hidden smiley, but for the benefit of those who don't > I should point out that the analogy is as false as it is facetious. A > program is a tool, not a work of art, no matter how proud you are of > that inner loop. I disagree with your statement that all programs aren't works of art. While most programs aren't, I've seen some that I would think would qualify. Just because an object is designed for a utilitarian purpose doesn't mean that it can't also please our aesthetic sensibilities at the same time. When I was at the Metropolitan Museum they displayed furniture, tableware and even armor as art. I'd say that some of the best computer games I've seen would qualify as art. Reading the code of some programs pleases me in much the way that I imagine reading sheet music of Bach might please a musician. Just because most programmers write the equivalent of suburban tract houses or boxy office buildings doesn't mean that a few programs aren't graceful and pleasing. But alas, none of those few is mine. -- Joel Upchurch/Concurrent Computer Corp/2486 Sand Lake Rd/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel Telephone: (407) 850-1040 Fax: (407) 857-0713