[drakonka]

I got into programming originally because for me it was an act of creation in a very similar way to my sketches and paintings at the time. Software can be art. Interactive art, in fact - so, much 'more' than a painting in some dimensions. Sure, often at work you are creating a means to an end. A painting can be a means to an end in the same way that software can - so many artists take commissions or work for bigger companies where they are told what to produce. I believe it is the purpose/intention behind the creation that makes it art vs a means to an end, not the medium. And some people (in any medium) are able to mix the act of artistic creation with productive output, blending work output and art.

[aristofun]

Act of creation of a product for sure, not lines of code.

End product is an asset, not the implementation details. That's the truth, regardless of how you or I feel about it.

That doesn't mean there is no beauty in the craft of writing the code etc. But it's not the key part.

[TimTheTinker]

> That doesn't mean there is no beauty in the craft of writing the code etc. But it's not the key part.

For folks who love software, it absolutely is a key part. Donald Knuth titled his book series "The Art of Computer Programming" for a good reason. It taps into the human creative impulse under a compelling set of technical constraints.

Generative AI in any form has the effect of forcing us toward the vanguard, to create something genuinely new or humanly beautiful if it is to be at all valued by others -- whether that novelty/beauty is because of the unique constraints of your company's internal software ecosystem or because you're striking out and building something others haven't built before (even a novel combination of existing ideas).

Novelty is very hard for most people, but perhaps the beauty (in the classical sense) of software projects[0] can still be recovered. Human agency always will be a powerful thing. (And there will always be other people for whom to create things.)

[0] 37Signals has always exhibited a compelling sense of joy in the process of creating beautiful software for people.

[aristofun]

> For folks who love software, it absolutely is a key part.

Those are the folks from early days when it was more about math (which is an art) and exploration rather than about actual software _engineering_.

If you're building new algorithms, new computers etc. - yes, your product is the tool itself. But this is a very limited case these days.

Unfortunately many folks drag this attitude in their business software domain and this leads to overengineering and redundant complexity.

With experience you can smell if this part of codebase was mostly made by folks who just like engineering for the sake of it, rather than people trying to reach the business goal in a reasonable time/cost. And this smell is terrible.

[TimTheTinker]

I think you may be missing my point. I'm not conflating products and engineering tools, but talking about how art and beauty (as Platonic ideals) can hopefully be preserved or resurrected in the current environment. Engineering "for the sake of it" without a view to business needs does carry pitfalls like you mentioned - that's not what I'm promoting. Leave that to universities and hobby projects (which are very important -- absent wealthy patrons of the arts, the best of culture in a civilization arises from small communities of learning and creative leisure).

But just like an architect designing a beautiful bridge that becomes a landmark, with the right management and product-market fit, it can be possible to profitably build beautiful software products for people. There are real, profitable businesses that do this, and people love their software.

People enjoy and value beautiful things; as a software business culture we ought to value creating them.