Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: august <august alien.mur.at>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:48:45 +0100 (CET)
Software is very, very different from other types of creative work -
it's a direct engineering solution. Not plans for a solution, an
I've had this debate in various pro-patent forums and I disagree with it
here just as much as I disagree with it there. Software may exist within
the field of engineering, but it is also an expression of public policy,
of art, and of things in many other fields. Yes there are those from the
early days that did not differentiate hardware from software that consider
software to either be an expression of math or or engineering, but we need
to get past that limited way of looking at software.
Software is no more simply an engineering solution than Robert's rules or
an act of parliament is.
hmm. I think the point he made was that software programming is
'creative' work. This overlaps a lot with artistic endeavers. To start
with nothing or almost nothing and create somthing from scratch. this is
and, programming, to me, is a language that artists and engineers can
share and communicate with. however, it does involve a lot of analysis and
understanding. much more than understanding how to use a brush, but
probably as much as understanding (or having a feel for) how colors and
out of the vast number of possible softwares, only a very tiny few will
actually compile and be exacutable. finding out which ones those are
takes a great deal of skill and probably a completely different mindset
than the creative mindset.
In the end, I think when you write software, you oscilate between the
creative mind and the analytical mind, between expanding thoughts and
possibilities and narrowing thoughts and possibilities.
getting stuck in between really sucks for both creative and engineering