[melling]

Nah, code can solve problems. It doesn't matter if it's pretty code, or the most efficient code, it just needs to be useful to someone. Developers are tool builders, not artists.

[dfxm12]

You can "paint" houses; you can "paint" the Mona Lisa.

Don't get so caught up with the language.

It's all about the mentality.

[davidw]

Hey, if I've got enough money to not worry about it, I'm likely to do things right for the sheer pleasure of it.

I suppose it's a bit like wordworking. Sure, most things serve some purpose, but I think that - ignoring costs - it's more pleasant for everyone involved if the end result is pleasing to look at and well built.

[rossng]

I think it's somewhere between the two. Software development is both creative and rigidly constrained by existing techniques/technology.

Claiming that it's only one or the other is simply creating a false dichotomy.

[melling]

Are you saying that it's art because it's creative? Can you simply list some of the "art"?

[daeken]

Look up the demoscene. http://shadertoy.com is a good start.

[melling]

Can you show me the source that you think is art? I see lots of #define and code that looks like C source.

Just to be clear, we are talking about source code itself that is art, right? Of course, source code can be written to create art. It's a tool, after all.

[benched]

This graphics programmer disagrees.

[melling]

Yeah, but all those Unity programmers agree with me.