Code, art, coding

I’ve read this article a long time ago. It’s an interesting perspective, but I do not constrain the work of writing code to dry logic.

I understand the author’s feelings when he writes, “While code may not be art, it can be artistic”. Neither do I view code itself as fulfilling, though well-designed code can be artistic.

The process of designing well-designed code is what gives me a sense of fulfillment. I stitch my best designwork into every tapestry. Then I learn from my mistakes.

In sum:

Code is not art, though it can be artistic.

Code design is art.

Writing code involves code design. For me, the two are inseparable.

c# 2.0 is nice, but there’s feature creep too

Feature creep killed C++ for me and for many people. It also killed Perl for us in the same way. So I when I looked up the new features on C# 2.0, the first thing on my mind was feature creep. And sadly I saw it.

I like the way they’ve done gererics. I like the new iterator features. I like the new containers, these are very cool! I like anonymous functions. I suspect that I won’t use it too heavily, but I believe that the feature is needed. In the case of iterators and anonymous functions, I appreciate the syntax. They’ve taken care to keep the syntax intuitive and consistent with the C# look and feel.

But I don’t take to partial classes so well. I see in it a striking resemblance to the #include keyword in C and C++. To my mind it would only help when you need to split up a large class into multiple files. When would you need to do this?