In article <B9031AAF.13F72%gehlker / fastq.com>,
Chris Gehlker  <gehlker / fastq.com> wrote:
>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.

Sure, it's why we (as a society) try to save buildings designed by Frank 
Lloyd Wright.  I wonder what old software we'll be trying to save in 100 
years ;-) (of course it would have to be open source so we could admire 
the beauty of it's architecture).

Phil