Dr. Dobb's Python-URL! - weekly Python news and links (Mar 26)

[Gonçalo Rodrigues]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:42:59 -0800, Geoff Gerrietts
<geoff at gerrietts.net> wrote:

>Quoting Gonçalo Rodrigues (op73418 at mail.telepac.pt):
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:04:50 -0800, Geoff Gerrietts
>> <geoff at gerrietts.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >Quoting Courageous (jkraska at san.rr.com):
>> >> 
>> >> >I'd say the skills required to write clear, readable
>> >> >software and clear, readable novels are not entirely
>> >> >disjoint!
>> >> 
>> >> Oh certainly not, you just haven't backed up to a big
>> >> enough perspective of the cognitive domain. :)
>> >
>> >I think poetry and code are actually very similar. Some day I may
>> >write a paper on that thesis, but I'm still living the experience
>> >today....
>> 
>> Poetry and coding are similar in that they are both creative activities
>> needing inteligence, imagination, etc. But there is also a world of
>> difference between the two. A simple way to see this is how they relate
>> to their heritage, their common dead.
>
>I think the startling similarity that I see is that code is in many
>ways an extremely strict form of poetry. If you look to things like
>the Perl poetry contests, and even the innumerable obfuscated code
>contests, these are artistic in a way that forms a sort of continuum.
>
>Writing code is a lot like writing a poem, with a vocabulary that is
>extremely restricted and formal requirements that are invariably
>rigid. The sense of meaning one derives from a program is generally
>more pragmatic than what one gets from a poem. But both are
>appreciated as much for what they say as for how they say it. 
>
>One notable difference between programming and poetry is that a
>programming cliche is acceptable, a rote that people are encouraged to
>re-use, whereas dropping someone else's clever turn of phrase into
>your poem is likely to backfire.
>
>I'm still a long way from a thesis, but I think the similarities are
>pretty astounding.
>
>And I don't think I can comment extensively on the "common dead",
>given that poets tend to take about 25 or 50 years to rise to
>prominence, and the widespread practice of programming in 3rd gen
>languages is still somewhat younger than that. I can comment on the
>"common living", though -- Silicon Valley and the Bay Area are both
>full of people who went to school for English and fell into writing
>HTML, Perl, PHP. I can't comment extensively on the quality of the
>code these writers-cum-programmers generate, but I'll bet their
>comments are at least a bit more intelligible -- and I'll bet their
>code is more readable.
>
>I've been programming for a long time -- most of my life at this
>point, and professionally for a bit more than 6 years. But my
>education was in poetry; I was trained as a poet, and somewhat
>successful at it, winning a few awards and being published in some out
>of the way places.
>
>I returned to programming when I realized that I was pretty good at
>writing, but I couldn't bring myself to do it in my spare time -- I
>was instead spending that spare time learning new programming
>languages, or learning Linux system administration. I didn't enjoy
>reading poetry all that much, but I could sit down and read a book on
>OO design or advanced programming techniques without hesitation.
>
>So I respect the differences; there are many, and I've chosen my road
>because of them. But the principal values of poetry: no wasted words,
>clear expression, clever expression, best use of language -- these
>values translate directly into writing code.
>

My comment was made not so much to deride the analogies which you have
pointed out, and with which I agree,  but to stress the differences
which are many and of great import.

And as an example of the differences I gave you the relation that the
living active practicioners (programmers or poets) have with the
heritage that is bestowed on them. Programming, although only a few
decades hold, already has its morcel of history and its heroes - the
demigod hackers - which are respected and revered. But the situation is
totally different in poetry, especially if you are a poet. The type of
respect and reverence given to Shakespeare is of a totally different
kind to that given to Guido van Rossum. Shakespeare has occupied its
place in the space of poetry and he will not suffer to be dislodge.
Shakespeare puts a contingency on all those that follow him because
there is no such thing as "poetry reuse", originality of Voice, of
Expression, of Vision, being THE most important goal for poets. Poetry,
or more generally the arts, are not progressive. My favourite living
prose writer is Thomas Pynchon. Is he a "progress" (on the aestethic
sense, the only one that matters) on Sterne or Dickens? Of course not.
But code, even very god one, is constantly being improved upon. An
anedoctal evidence of this is that code has bugs!

So, to sum things up, I do not disagree with the similarities you have
pointed out - essentially, the sense of beauty in a piece of code,
deriving not just from what you are trying to achieve but in the way you
achieve it - but I wanted to point out the differences and frame them
better.

>Maybe that thesis isn't so many years off, after all....
>
>--G.

Best regards,
Gonçalo Rodrigues