Re: Artistically creative expression has no role in software design

["Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com>]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:

> Who said anything about beauty? I was sarcastically noting that office
> buildings and bridges are in fact almost never identical, even though
> their functions are essentially simple - one contains offices and the
> other spans waterways.

But get away from structures that also try to provide a public aesthetic
(which would also be a functional--albeit touchy-feely--design requirement),
like skyscrapers and high-profile bridges, and consider utilitarian ones.

E.g., freeway overpasses. I strongly suspect that the overpasses built
within a given state, conforming to specific industry and state
requirements, and on similar terrain will all be virtually identical, with
only functionally-derived differences in length, clearance, and approach
angle.

I also regularly see these mini-retail sales buildings that house 2-10
tenants being constructed all around where I live. They're virtually
identical (high wall in front, roof sloping to the back, one door, a display
window on either side of the door) no matter who builds them, with the main
variation being the number of (identically constructed) tenant modules to
incorporate.

In terms of software, Heer's argument is about "_creative_expression_"
within the software, which is not necessary for correct functioning. Now how
developer's come up with the correct (and optimal) implementation may be
aided by creative problem solving, and creative leaps of understanding of
how to find the solution, but the solution itself is a product of
engineering.