Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    0
    So you are saying that you would rather leave everythig up for debate and interpretation rather then defines things with clear cut rules. That's fine with me, but sounds nothing like what I would expect a programer to say

    Programing is about clear-cut rules and such. If you can't define terms that relate with programing with clear cut rules, then everything falls apart to the will of the one person who dose not like how somthing sounds. You need rigid rules and order. You are suggesting anarchy and that we should all leave the interpretation of words up for debate. That is hardly an effective way to deal with communication.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,140
    Quote Originally Posted by ffejnosliw View Post
    They are just tools used to create something, possibly something that inspires people or stimulates their senses. Hmmm...that sounds like your definition for art. Coincidence?
    Throw Paris Hilton in there and you've got yourself a blockbuster internet movie!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    So you are saying that you would rather leave everythig up for debate and interpretation rather then defines things with clear cut rules. That's fine with me, but sounds nothing like what I would expect a programer to say

    Programing is about clear-cut rules and such. If you can't define terms that relate with programing with clear cut rules, then everything falls apart to the will of the one person who dose not like how somthing sounds. You need rigid rules and order. You are suggesting anarchy and that we should all leave the interpretation of words up for debate. That is hardly an effective way to deal with communication.
    Yes, I quite like the idea of leaving things up for debate. That is the only way our understanding of things can ever be furthered. It was once thought, by scientists mind you, that the world was flat and that the entire universe revolved around it. If we had just accepted that, where would we be today?

    Yes, programming deals with a clear-cut set of rules, but the whole idea is to see what you can do within that set of rules. Programmers like John Carmack have furthered the entire game industry simply because they did things in a new way that was different than what others were doing. This is a creative process whether you like it or not. There is almost always an element of science in art and art in science. They are not mutually exclusive.

    I am sure you would agree that painters are artists. They would not be able to do what they do without a solid understanding of how colors work together and how light interacts with surfaces. They do a great deal of experimenting and studying in order to be able to produce the end result of a work of art. Art is a science...and science is an art.
    Last edited by ffejnosliw; 05-08-2007 at 02:26 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    0
    The definition of a word dose not corrilate with the geometric shape of our planet. I don't see how your analagy is relevent. Therys change and evolove with what new knowlage we gather, yet the definitions of words must remain solid in order to ensure that people can comunicate. I do not understand why this is difficult :wierd:

    So dose science. In science we have a clear cut set of rules of what is possable and what is not. So we must use what is the relm of possability to make our "desired effects." The same with programing.

    A science becomes an art when you introduce the element of invoking emotion. If you can argue that John Carmack's code was invented by him to invoke emotion and stimulate our sences, then that would prove that it is an art. Otherwise, it cannot be clasifyed as being art as par with the definition I quoted eairler.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    3,251
    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    Well, then I have to say that I do not think that is a good attitutude about computers, and to be frank, it feels like much of what you say here is said in some way to prove me wrong or start a fight and not how you acually feel about the situation at hand.
    I don't have a good attitude about computers... ok. Except I spend 8~10 hours a day designing and writing code at work, then I come home and spend anywhere from 1~8 hours designing and programming my own projects... whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    I don't know you, but I doubt you sat back in your classroom twidling your thumbs waiting for the class to be over becuse of how much you don't care about how procsessors work.
    No... I actually had my laptop and was either working on the homework that was going to be due sometime that week for that class or a different class or doing my own little projects. I didn't say it wasn't interesting, just that I don't care that much how it works... there is a HUGE difference between hardware and software. I don't really care about the level of software that integrates with the hardware; I don't find it that interesting. And for you to assume that all programmers should carry the same interest for ALL aspects of computing is a bit naive.

    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    They are faciniating machines, and I cannot possably fathom how a fellow programer can not 'care' about how they work. Maby you are not as deticated to programing as I origonally thought, which is fine, it's just I have been lead on to an incorect conclusion all this time.
    People are different... people have different interests. Why don't you ask people around here what they think about my dedication to programming? Afterall, what people say about you is likely a good representation of how the majority of people will percieve you.

    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    The end of the world comes when everyone cecsess to care about how technology works.
    Wow... a little dramatic... let's not forget about the horrible autrocities that technology has brought into our world as well.

    "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." ~Rich Cook

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    0
    No... I actually had my laptop and was either working on the homework that was going to be due sometime that week for that class or a different class or doing my own little projects. I didn't say it wasn't interesting, just that I don't care that much how it works... there is a HUGE difference between hardware and software. I don't really care about the level of software that integrates with the hardware; I don't find it that interesting. And for you to assume that all programmers should carry the same interest for ALL aspects of computing is a bit naive.
    If all aspects of programing have one thing in common, it is that they run on a procsessor in the same way. It is a bit naive to imply that all aspects of programing do not realy on the same execution envoirment. Therefore, if there is one common area of programer's knowlage, it should be that. Define 'interesting' and 'care'. By the sound of it, you are pulling the lets-disagree-with--although-at-the-same-time-agree-becuse-I-use-different-temonology-then-him trick.


    People are different... people have different interests. Why don't you ask people around here what they think about my dedication to programming? Afterall, what people say about you is likely a good representation of how the majority of people will percieve you.
    Why don't you ask me about how I percive your detication? You seem bent to mold whatever temonology and bend whatever sources to disagree with me, no matter what I say. That says that you are more deticated to prove me wrong then help out the poster of this thread.

    Wow... a little dramatic... let's not forget about the horrible autrocities that technology has brought into our world as well.
    Technology is horrable. However, it is hardwired into our existance, so although I recognise it's dangers I am in no way activily denying my nature. In fact, it seems I am doing the opposite.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    The definition of a word dose not corrilate with the geometric shape of our planet. I don't see how your analagy is relevent. Therys change and evolove with what new knowlage we gather, yet the definitions of words must remain solid in order to ensure that people can comunicate. I do not understand why this is difficult :wierd:

    So dose science. In science we have a clear cut set of rules of what is possable and what is not. So we must use what is the relm of possability to make our "desired effects." The same with programing.

    A science becomes an art when you introduce the element of invoking emotion. If you can argue that John Carmack's code was invented by him to invoke emotion and stimulate our sences, then that would prove that it is an art. Otherwise, it cannot be clasifyed as being art as par with the definition I quoted eairler.
    As far as this whole talk about definitions of words, I don't even know what you are on about. I never questioned the definition of any words as far as I know. I questioned your classification of programming as solely being a science.

    Science is not just about living within the rules set out before you. It is about questioning those rules and coming up with new ones. This how we come up with things like quantum mechanics which makes this whole thing called programming possible in the first place. I realize that the thought of not having strict rules to follow may scare you (although I cannot fo rthe life of me figure out why), but the challenging of the rules that others have set forth is what brings about the advancements that make our lives what they are today.

    I certainly believe that John Carmack's code was written with the intention of evoking emotion and stimulating the senses and I believe that was exactly the effect it had. He made the whole idea of 3D games possible and has continued to provide some of if not THE best graphics video games have ever seen. These two things provide an immersive experience which can evoke emotion and stimulate the senses. If you could hear Buzz talk about the feeling he had when he first played DOOM, you may begin to have some sort of an understanding of what I mean.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ffejnosliw View Post
    As far as this whole talk about definitions of words, I don't even know what you are on about. I never questioned the definition of any words as far as I know. I questioned your classification of programming as solely being a science.

    Science is not just about living within the rules set out before you. It is about questioning those rules and coming up with new ones. This how we come up with things like quantum mechanics which makes this whole thing called programming possible in the first place. I realize that the thought of not having strict rules to follow may scare you (although I cannot fo rthe life of me figure out why), but the challenging of the rules that others have set forth is what brings about the advancements that make our lives what they are today.

    I certainly believe that John Carmack's code was written with the intention of evoking emotion and stimulating the senses and I believe that was exactly the effect it had. He made the whole idea of 3D games possible and has continued to provide some of if not THE best graphics video games have ever seen. These two things provide an immersive experience which can evoke emotion and stimulate the senses. If you could hear Buzz talk about the feeling he had when he first played DOOM, you may begin to have some sort of an understanding of what I mean.
    OK, I cannot figure out where the first two paragraphs fit into this discussion, so I will leave them out To justify, I have in no way said that science is about following strict rules, I said definitions must follow strict rules, and the rules that govern our universe must be strict. The latter set is not the rules defined by what we can measure, I am talking about the ultimute set of physical laws that govern our existance. In fact, I explicity said:
    Therys change and evolove with what new knowlage we gather, yet the definitions of words must remain solid
    So, I do not know what you are trying to say.

    It was his code, yet it was sombody else's 3D Models, 2D Textures, Sounds, Levels ans Stories. You can't see code, but you can see all the other things listed.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    3,251
    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    If all aspects of programing have one thing in common, it is that they run on a procsessor in the same way. It is a bit naive to imply that all aspects of programing do not realy on the same execution envoirment. Therefore, if there is one common area of programer's knowlage, it should be that. Define 'interesting' and 'care'. By the sound of it, you are pulling the lets-disagree-with-nelson-although-at-the-same-time-agree-becuse-I-use-different-temonology-then-him trick.
    Here's an example... I think the heart is interesting, but I don't really care about the details of how it works - that part does not interest me.

    Also... by your logic, all aspects of programming have typing (for those that can type) in common, and I don't find that terribly interesting either.

    Also... FYI, I use C++ and C#.

    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    Why don't you ask me about how I percive your detication? You seem bent to mold whatever temonology and bend whatever sources to disagree with me, no matter what I say. That says that you are more deticated to prove me wrong then help out the poster of this thread.
    I already know your perception of me... so why ask?

    Oh... and I did help the poster out... post #2.

    "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." ~Rich Cook

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    To justify, I have in no way said that science is about following strict rules
    Yes, you did:
    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    In science we have a clear cut set of rules of what is possable and what is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by <> View Post
    It was his code, yet it was sombody else's 3D Models, 2D Textures, Sounds, Levels ans Stories. You can't see code, but you can see all the other things listed.
    Without the code, none of the rest of it matters. I can create a model, but without the code driving the game along and rendering my model, what good is it?

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •