Re: Programming is not a craft

Hello, Chris.  On Thursday, January 13, 2011, at 12:02:45 AM, you
wrote:

> When brainstorming notes on Dan's article I wrote this down: "But there's an
> obvious difference between a work of utility and a work of beauty, between
> something to be used, and something to enjoy, be inspired by, etc." And this
> seems an obvious argument with so many extremes to compare (the TXDoT bridge
> vs. the gargoyle) ... and my gut just doesn't seem to buy it. It's too easy
> to say that, but it doesn't resonate in my soul. That one _cannot_ divorce
> any work of art/craft from its utility (in sometimes a very broad sense),
> and that any successful utilitarian work _cannot_ be void of beauty (though
> the beauty may be dulled).

I tweeted, and meant it, that when someone says programming is not
craftsmanship, I am inclined to believe that their way of
programming is not craftsmanship

Mine, on my better days, is. I have spent, and spend, many hours
learning how to program well. I have tried to learn to see what
makes a program "good", not just what makes a program "work".

I recall that sometimes when I'm in a hotel, I reach under the desk
and discover that the insides of the boards are rough and unsanded.
When I touch better furniture, I discover that the invisible bits
are smooth and well finished, though perhaps not to the same high
gloss as the visible.

The difference, I believe, is craftsmanship.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Learn the principle, abide by the principle, and dissolve the principle.
  -- Bruce Lee