[lioeters]

Curious to see if that can map to what's happening in the software industry/community.

> The product of software engineering (or computer science) is clarity and understanding. Not programs, by themselves. Their importance is not just in their specific statements (lines of code in a specific language), but their role in challenging our understanding, presenting challenges that led to computational (?) developments that increased our understanding.

> ..In short, software only exists in a living community of developers that spreads understanding and breaths life into ideas both old and new. The real satisfaction from computers is in learning from others and sharing with others.

That seems to work. What about other areas of human activity that are currently being consumed by automation and "AI"? Like writing, the arts, or the sciences.

[measurablefunc]

Peter Naur wrote an essay about exactly that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016560...

[lioeters]

Indeed, both Thurston's quote about mathematics, and Naur's programming as theory building, are classics that are relevant now more than ever. A download link for the latter: https://gwern.net/doc/cs/algorithm/1985-naur.pdf (PDF)

[CGamesPlay]

> The product of software engineering (or computer science) is clarity and understanding.

Hard disagree. Software engineering is about satisfying requirements while optimizing costs. Computer science is the part where clarity and understanding are the goal.

[antonvs]

> The product of software engineering (or computer science) is clarity and understanding. Not programs, by themselves.

The industry demonstrates that in practice, typically, it doesn’t agree with this. “Get the program working” is goal 1, and everything after that is optional, depending on the environment.