[thunky]

> I'll slightly disagree here because code needs to be read by a computer and by your human teammates.

I still don't think that makes it art and this is why: art can't be simplified. Code can.

Take that to it's extreme and you see that code can be simplified down to nothing without anything being destroyed. Art can't.

Maybe you could say that the act of programming (or simplifying) is an artform, but that's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about the product of that process, which is just instructions to accomplish a task.

[verve_rat]

> Take that to it's extreme and you see that code can be simplified down to nothing without anything being destroyed.

I disagree. The thing being destroyed is readability and common understanding with your fellow programmers.

[thunky]

My point was that removing code (not just reformatting it) without changing behavior is a gain, not a loss. Art is the opposite.

That tells me that the code itself is not important; the task/instructions the code performs is the important part. Therefore code is a utility, not an artform.

Yes I want written instructions to be understandable to humans, so my code conforms to tool-enforced formatting standards 100% of the time, not subject to artistic interpretation.