Hi Eric, I did hit reply to this ("I’m legitimately looking for perspectives here. If you have an idea, please hit reply."), but I have not heard from you.
Perhaps my message did not arrive?
My message was that y = F ( Y , e ) is a beautiful tuplespace methodology that works for every transactional problem we have tried. F is a function (the sole programming), Y is the immutable tuplespace (the sole data persistence), e is some new event, and y is a new data tuple.
Nov 27, 2023·edited Nov 27, 2023Liked by Eric Normand
The masterpieces are the designs and the patterns. Not the implementations.
The general design of the jQuery api featured several big innovations that I think qualify as masterpiece level art: The innovation of using css selectors, the ability for the jquery function to be used in a bunch of very useful ways, the way they educated people about unobtrusive javascript, the bare fact that they tried so hard to have a `slideUp` function if there's a `slidDown`. It taught a whole generation of people "how to javascript properly". Surely thats a masterpiece.
Certain aspects of React qualify. Virtual-dom, the context mechanism (dynamic scope but useful? Say whaaa), hooks - these I believe are masterpieces.
MagicMock in python is infuriating but a masterpiece
The design of powershell I personally think qualifies - a lot of the standards around it are super well done
A large chunk of Racket - totally a masterpiece even if its rarely used
Then there are tools and paradigms
SQL is a masterpiece
The web is a masterpiece. All credit to TBL.
I think the REST paradigm is a masterpiece. GraqphQL is like a weird corporate take on api design - like some sort of branding agency which produces work that is soul-less, but still interesting and worthy of awe.
I think the way emacs interacts with the open source community in a way that is quite unique and produces things that are so innovative and cool and useful (despite often being complete shit under the hood) is some sort of weird modern art masterpiece.
Oh, also that feature of Macs where if you wiggle the mouse, the cursor gets bigger. Total masterpiece.
There are masterpieces that might fall out-of-scope of this survey. Focusing on line-by-line or form-by-form craftsmanship, we risk overlooking some of the greatest stuff.
Some masterpieces evaporate into the mists of Computer Science. Take SQL, for example. Or the Unix idea of pipes. It was software at one time, but now it is just furniture we stand on.
Other masterpieces are perceptibly masterful only when taken in from a distance. Stallman's Emacs might be hard-to-adore when viewed up-close, but take a giant step back so you can see the elegance of embedding ELisp, and suddenly it's not just art, it's a masterpiece.
Reading the code is more like reading a musical score. I cannot tell if it is a beautiful piece of music. I have to hear it played. It is not literature, it is an instruction. The way in which it works could be art.
There's a huge amount of art created that the public never gets to see -- only the tiniest fraction of art ever gets famous and shown/performed around the world.
You could perhaps argue that GitHub and GitLab etc are the museums of the software world and conferences and webinars, where code is demoed, are the concert halls :)
“ Can something be an art if only the artist can appreciate it?”
The artist here being any programmer, or Knuth specifically? I think it could still be considered art. Handing someone a copy of Anna Karenina in Russian, when they don’t know the language wouldn’t change the artistic value of the work. A better comparison though I guess, since a person could get a copy of the work in a language they do understand, would be “is a classic game of chess between 2 masters art?” For people that know chess they could certainly consider it such, though to most people it would mean nothing to them. Even within people with knowledge of chess there would be a spectrum of understanding and appreciation of a game. I agree with George that it is probably more the ideas and design behind it than the syntax implementing it, though there probably are things about how someone implements an idea that can be beautiful as well.
I think I wasn't clear enough: nobody looking at the TeX source code thinks it's beautiful now, even when they understand it. My point is that even programmers don't like old code. Nothing stands the test of time.
Three complications with the denominator: First, practicing an art does not necessarily result in artwork! Artwork requires an observer, a critic. Jon Bentley's "Programming Pearls", Knuth's TeX, Friedman & Byrd's "MiniKanren" logic language are rare examples of programs presented as artworks. Second, programs are at the intersection of engineering and art. Every door hinge and road bridge has observers, but what fraction of door hinges or road bridges are received as masterpieces? You could count them on one hand, if not two fingers. Third, masterpieces may be deemed so for technical reasons that may elude the bystander... the daring modern-art canvas with nothing on it, or Hickey's core.async as a mere library as opposed to language features, etc. With all that in mind, the examples of Bentley, Byrd, Hickey, and honorable mention for effort to Knuth -- seems like not a bad start.
Hi Eric, I did hit reply to this ("I’m legitimately looking for perspectives here. If you have an idea, please hit reply."), but I have not heard from you.
Perhaps my message did not arrive?
My message was that y = F ( Y , e ) is a beautiful tuplespace methodology that works for every transactional problem we have tried. F is a function (the sole programming), Y is the immutable tuplespace (the sole data persistence), e is some new event, and y is a new data tuple.
Full details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJyK9YYBWA
(replied in email, but I'll reply here, too)
Yeah, that's a cool and simple model. Check out the Linda tuplespace calculus if you're interested in these ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_(coordination_language)#Semantics
The masterpieces are the designs and the patterns. Not the implementations.
The general design of the jQuery api featured several big innovations that I think qualify as masterpiece level art: The innovation of using css selectors, the ability for the jquery function to be used in a bunch of very useful ways, the way they educated people about unobtrusive javascript, the bare fact that they tried so hard to have a `slideUp` function if there's a `slidDown`. It taught a whole generation of people "how to javascript properly". Surely thats a masterpiece.
Certain aspects of React qualify. Virtual-dom, the context mechanism (dynamic scope but useful? Say whaaa), hooks - these I believe are masterpieces.
MagicMock in python is infuriating but a masterpiece
The design of powershell I personally think qualifies - a lot of the standards around it are super well done
A large chunk of Racket - totally a masterpiece even if its rarely used
Then there are tools and paradigms
SQL is a masterpiece
The web is a masterpiece. All credit to TBL.
I think the REST paradigm is a masterpiece. GraqphQL is like a weird corporate take on api design - like some sort of branding agency which produces work that is soul-less, but still interesting and worthy of awe.
I think the way emacs interacts with the open source community in a way that is quite unique and produces things that are so innovative and cool and useful (despite often being complete shit under the hood) is some sort of weird modern art masterpiece.
Oh, also that feature of Macs where if you wiggle the mouse, the cursor gets bigger. Total masterpiece.
I love the idea that jQuery is a masterpiece. It certainly did have an immense impact on web development.
There are masterpieces that might fall out-of-scope of this survey. Focusing on line-by-line or form-by-form craftsmanship, we risk overlooking some of the greatest stuff.
Some masterpieces evaporate into the mists of Computer Science. Take SQL, for example. Or the Unix idea of pipes. It was software at one time, but now it is just furniture we stand on.
Other masterpieces are perceptibly masterful only when taken in from a distance. Stallman's Emacs might be hard-to-adore when viewed up-close, but take a giant step back so you can see the elegance of embedding ELisp, and suddenly it's not just art, it's a masterpiece.
oh wow, didn't read your answer until I posted mine, but see we use some of the same examples ;)
Reading the code is more like reading a musical score. I cannot tell if it is a beautiful piece of music. I have to hear it played. It is not literature, it is an instruction. The way in which it works could be art.
Interesting interpretation. The trouble is you're not a composer.
When reading Beethoven's score, do modern composers cringe at it? That seems to be the consensus response to old code among programmers.
Many people have cringed when they listen to modern dissonant music. The question is what is the art form - the written instructions or what it does.
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/beautiful-code/9780596510046/
Here’s an answer!
I'll read it. Thanks!
There's a huge amount of art created that the public never gets to see -- only the tiniest fraction of art ever gets famous and shown/performed around the world.
You could perhaps argue that GitHub and GitLab etc are the museums of the software world and conferences and webinars, where code is demoed, are the concert halls :)
“ Can something be an art if only the artist can appreciate it?”
The artist here being any programmer, or Knuth specifically? I think it could still be considered art. Handing someone a copy of Anna Karenina in Russian, when they don’t know the language wouldn’t change the artistic value of the work. A better comparison though I guess, since a person could get a copy of the work in a language they do understand, would be “is a classic game of chess between 2 masters art?” For people that know chess they could certainly consider it such, though to most people it would mean nothing to them. Even within people with knowledge of chess there would be a spectrum of understanding and appreciation of a game. I agree with George that it is probably more the ideas and design behind it than the syntax implementing it, though there probably are things about how someone implements an idea that can be beautiful as well.
I think I wasn't clear enough: nobody looking at the TeX source code thinks it's beautiful now, even when they understand it. My point is that even programmers don't like old code. Nothing stands the test of time.
Three complications with the denominator: First, practicing an art does not necessarily result in artwork! Artwork requires an observer, a critic. Jon Bentley's "Programming Pearls", Knuth's TeX, Friedman & Byrd's "MiniKanren" logic language are rare examples of programs presented as artworks. Second, programs are at the intersection of engineering and art. Every door hinge and road bridge has observers, but what fraction of door hinges or road bridges are received as masterpieces? You could count them on one hand, if not two fingers. Third, masterpieces may be deemed so for technical reasons that may elude the bystander... the daring modern-art canvas with nothing on it, or Hickey's core.async as a mere library as opposed to language features, etc. With all that in mind, the examples of Bentley, Byrd, Hickey, and honorable mention for effort to Knuth -- seems like not a bad start.