On 5/11/02 3:25 PM, "Phil Tomson" <ptkwt / shell1.aracnet.com> wrote:

> In article <1021149573.smmsdV1.1.2 / 217.10.192.226>,
> Radu M. Obad<whizkid / xnet.ro> wrote:
>> Mind me... but I feel like stating my oppinions regarding this issue. I
>> deeply believe that software engineering is, if not a form of art, much
>> more than science. Software engineering involves much more than
>> technical knwoledge, it involves imagination, creativity, an analithical
>> mind, and much more. Creating quality software (and I'm focusing on open
>> source software) means devotement, and an enormous will to create... I
>> think that is the most important thing.
>> So, if not an art, software engineering is definitely much more than
>> science. There is more to talk on this.. but I think I made myself
>> clear.
>> Best regards and happy coding,
> 
> So software engineering may lie at the intersection of art and science.
> Perhaps it's a synthesis of each that creates a third, new catagory.
> 
> Phil
> 

I think "art" is broad enough to include software. Radu sort of set up a
false dichotomy by implying that art is necessarily subjective, has no
particular requirement to be useful and lacks a basis in technology.

But architecture is art and when it is done well it has a sound
technological basis, it is useful, it has a strong objective element and it
is beautiful. When done less well, it lacks some of these characteristics.

Sounds a lot like software to me.
-- 
We ought not to treat living creatures like shoes or household belongings,
which when worn with use we throw away. -Plutarch, biographer (c. 46-120)