Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Search - "aesthetics"
When a win10m emulator has better aesthetics then your actual Lumia950xl :v
//Also the app somehow runs better on a 1gb ram emulator than my 3gb ram phone.2
Not because the software/service itself is inherently bad, or because I don't see any value in A/B testing.
It's because every company which starts using quantitative user research, stops using qualitative user research.
Suddenly it's all about being data driven.
Which means you end up with a website with bright red blinking BUY buttons, labels which tell you that you must convert to the brand cult within 30 seconds or someone else will steal away the limited supply, and email campaigns which promise free heroin with every order.
For long term brand loyalty you need a holistic, polished experience, which requires a vision based on aesthetics and gut feelings -- not hard data.
A/B testing, when used as some kind of holy grail, causes product fragmentation. There's a strong bias towards immediate conversions while long term churn is underrepresented.
The result of an A/B test is never "well, our sales increased since we started offering free heroin with every sale, but all of our clients die after 6 months so our yearly revenue is down -- so maybe we should offer free LSD instead"5
Yknow, I want to make an android app that I have in my mind for about half a year now and I already tried twice, both with Kotlin and with Java but everytime I try it's just pain and suffering and frustration...
No it's not because of the language, I like Java and I like Kotlin too and I'd say I'm at least decent at Kotlin and really good in Java...
No no.. the issue is the fucking Android SDK and the mix-and-match documentation available online!!!
Every fucking time I want to implement some sort of UI element, user action or a background service and I start googling how to do it It comes with with at least 3 different stack overflow solutions, all of them saying "that way of doing it is deprecated, instead you should X" and looking up the OFFICIAL FUCKING DOCS it will just make me roll up in the corner and cry because of how fucking inconsistent it is and the retarded domain language it uses... fucking transactions for fucking fragments inside fucking activities... because I guess the word "screen"/"view"/"template" or something similar natural just was too mainstream for the all knowing alphabet soup that google is...
And then you start looking up what the fucking difference even is and how to code it up only to find out there's at least 12 other opinions on how fragments should be used and what should be an activity and what should be a damn fragment...
But that's not all, that's just the base... I get a headache even thinking about how the fucking inflating of templates and the entire R. notation works. You want to open a fucking tiny corner menu with the settings options? WELL THEN YOU FUCKING BETTER REMEMBER TO IMPLEMENT IT THROUGH SOME SORT OF EVENT AND INFLATE THE MENU YOURSELF EVEN THOUGH ITS THE SAME FUCKING THING WITH STATIC STRINGS...
AND WHY THE FUCK DO I NEED LIKE 4 NEW FILES TO IMPLEMENT A FUCKING LISTVIEW...
also talking about ListViews... what was wrong with "ListView"... Why do we need a "RecyclerView"... oh right... because the fucks fucked the fuck up and all the legacy components were designed by a monkey and are next to useless! SO WE NEEDED A NEW NAME FOR THE FIXED VERSION, CANT NAME IT LISTVIEW AGAIN... FUCK YOU...
honestly... if I got a dolar for every "what the fuck android" I said during trying to understand that mess I'd be richer by a few hundred...
Look at this piece of shit:
[code in attached image, we could really use a proper Markdown support at least for rants]
THAT'S NOT EVEN THE ENTIRE THING, THAT'S JUST THE *REALLY* UGLY PART...
The fucking nesting... What is it with JS and all the fucking nesting everytime?! It looks like shit.... It reads like shit as well...
WHY, in the name OF FUCK, IS THERE MORE THAN 5 ANDROID FRAMEWORKS and ALL of them... used this FUCKING NOVEL idea of programming using A FUCKING BRACKET WALL
It always looks like:
Fuck the marionette that designed the Android SDK
And deeply future-fuck everyone that makes a new framework following any of these standards, stucks a .js at the end of the name and releases his hairball.js of an invention into the fucking world....
It's a mess... fuck everything android related...15
Happy birthday, Dr. Nabil Ali!
Today’s Google Doodle celebrates Egyptian pioneer of Arabic language computing, Dr. Nabil Ali, on his 82nd birthday. Dr. Nabil Ali’s innovations in the field of computational linguistics propelled the Arab world into the Information Age by creating programs that enabled computers to understand Arabic in digital form.
Dr. Nabil Ali was born in Cairo on this day in 1938. Expressing an interest in art at a young age, Mohamed was inspired to apply his creative passion for visual aesthetics to the world of engineering. After obtaining his PhD in Aeronautical Engineering at Cairo University, he spent over 20 years working as an engineer with the Egyptian Air Force, as well as with various computer and electronics companies throughout the world.
For Dr. Nabil Ali, digitization of Arabic, with its complex linguistic rules and morphology, was a way to connect Arabic speakers with the world.
Over the course of his career, Dr. Nabil Ali published a number of papers, books, and technical reports in support of the developments he was making in the field of computational linguistics. His work won him several awards, including the prestigious Saudi Arabian award, the King Faisal Prize, in 2012—recognizing his pioneering contributions to the Arabic Language and Literature.5
I fucking hate the design and aesthetics of PC gaming hardware in general. Who the fuck do they design those things for, edgy teenagers? Give me something that looks well built and professional, damnit. Heck, most console designs are much better.13
Why the heck does the C++ committee let Microsoft have so much influence over the language?
I mean they do not give a flying flamingo about language aesthetics!
No, no, we cannot have `typeof` in the C++ standard because Microsoft pulled `decltype` out of their nullptr.3
Switched from Android to iOS. Been using android since 2014 and now I’m on iOS 13 on the iPhone 11.
It’s pretty nice overall but there are somethings I really miss. YouTube vanced with its background audio and cracked Spotify were godsends. From what I’ve seen, adblockers only really work on safari but safari actually works just fine and it looks really nice too.
I can still use 22.214.171.124 as my dns and have adblocking, I love it.
Pip is something I thought I’d miss but found that I really didn’t need it.
Sound and notifications are a big pain tho. Only one channel of audio? Cmon man. And notifications on iOS are a bit of a mess.
Control center is very very nice in terms of functionality and aesthetics.
Speaking of, everything in iOS just looks so good. The UI/UX Is incredible.
The display on my iPhone isn’t better than my s8 and some YouTube videos look kinda wack even at 1080 and even some nice photos I took on my s8 looked sucky ish. I think a big reason why the “android camera sucks lmao” meme still exists is because most iPhones have low pixel density and are maybe biased to make iPhone shots look better? Idk tho
I used to disable animations on android but iOS animations are very nice.
Shortcuts app is very cool, very integrated big supporter of this.11
So I'm coming out of one that has a focus on this stack (JS [JQuery after weeks of Vanilla JS drilling in our heads, React], Java, MySQL, Python [Django, Bottle], HTML/CSS, and a few web security concepts (XSS, SQL injections).
The whole course has been 4 months learning, 3 weeks working on a final project. Next week is the presentation, so I think I can safely comment on the course.
We moved fast, but that's to be expected. Lecture in the mornings, exercises in the afternoons, assignments due at the beginning of each week. Constantly working towards it and improving. I have been working pretty hard. We were given some help, but had to get a lot of answers online (based God StackOverflow), but that's part of it.
We touched on some concepts like inheritance in JS, Python and Java, OOP and to be open to concepts we don't know so we should be thirsty for that knowledge.
In my off time, I've begun texting myself Node and really trying to double down on React because it seems useful. I realized I was more drawn to the backend, but I was comfortable in front end as well. (Just don't ask me to design anything, my eye for aesthetics/CSS sorcery is terrible.)
The overall experience has been pretty mixed, but we were mostly unsatisfied. We weren't given then help we were promised. The explanations weren't exactly crystal clear, so we would have to teach ourselves and each other quite a bit. We worked together a lot. Some people really fell behind, some caught up, some flew ahead and thrived. (I'm somewhere between caught up and thrived, I recognize where I stand.)
I'm happy I did a bootcamp, they aren't miracle programs, but they at least kick you into place that you are learning and need to continue to learn. (Just kinda wish I had done a different one.)
Feel free to ask about anything concerning it!
Product and Design have a common enemy. Yes, you guessed it right, Engineering.
The former aim to solve user problems and focus heavily on aesthetics most of the time. While the latter actually does it.
As a Product guy, I admit that I absolutely hate the role these days because all that are asked to focus on is engagement retention conversion and other fancy metrics. Community has missed the entire point of why the fucking role exist.
On the other hand, engineering always asks the best questions. Focuses on performance and scale while periodically checking on tech debt. Yes, they suck at business or sales but when the solution works, things automatically make money.
I DON'T FUCKING CARE HOW BEAUTIFUL YOUR APP IS, IF IT DOESN'T SOLVE MY PROBLEM THEN IT'S RUBBISH.
Functionality and UX matters to more than colour scheme or fonts. Reason why Amazon is a huge. They are functionally solving a great problem while constantly improvising UX and not giving a rat's ass on UI.
Another down side to your fancy design is that the UI elements make things heavier. No wonder engineers have always been the best problem solver.
We lost our way. Tech world needs to go back a decade or two to fix the tech debt.8
How the Common Lisp Community will eventually die soon:
Clojure is the only main Lisp dialect having some sort of heavy presence in today's modern development world. Yes, I am aware of other(if not all) environments in which Lisp or a dialect of it is being used for multiple things, CADLisp, Guile Scheme, Racket, etc etc whatever. I know.
Yet, there is no real point in using Lisp or Clojure other than for pure academic endeavours, for which it is not even a pure functional programming language, you would be better served learning something else if you want true functional purity. But also because examples for one of the major areas in software development, mainly web, are really lacking, like, lacking bad, as in, so bad most examples are few in between and there is no interest in making it target complete beginners or anything of the like.
But my biggest fucking gripe with Lisp as a whole, specifically Common Lisp, is how monstrously outdated the documentation you can find available for it is.
Say for example, aesthetics, these play a large role, a developer(web mostly) used to the attention to detail placed by the Rails community, the Laravel community, django, etc etc would find on documentation that came straight from the 90s. There is no passion for design, no attention to detail, it makes it look hacky and abandoned. Everything in Lisp looks so severely abandoned for which the most abundant pool of resources are not even made present on a fully general purpose language constrained as a scripting environment for a text editor: Emacs with Emacs Lisp which I reckon is about the most used Lisp dialect in the planet, even more so than Clojure or Common Lisp.
I just want the language to be made popular again y'know? To have a killer app or framework for it much like there is Rails for Ruby, Phoenix for Elixir, etc etc. But unless I get some serious hacking done to bring about the level of maturity of those frameworks(which I won't nor I believe I can) then it will always remain a niche language with funny syntax.
To be honest I am phasing away my use of Clojure in place of Pharo. I just hate seeing how much the Lisp community does in an effort to keep shit as obscure and far away from the reach of new developers as possible. I also DESPISE reading other Lisp developer's code. Far too fucking dense and clever for anyone other than the original developer to read and add to. The idea that Lisp allows for read only code is far too real man.
Gotta make a decision matrix like the one in the picture. It's for a recommendation report concerning whether or not to distribute laptops to the CSCE students at my university and what kind of laptop if so.
I need help determining the weights for my matrix, because my personal preferences may not reflect the majority. As a programmer, how would you weigh the following three (very broad) categories?
Power(CPU, GPU, memory, HDD, I/O, etc..)
Quality (Durability, material, aesthetics, etc..)
Comfort(Weight, size, shape, keyboard, screen-eye comfort, OS familiarity, etc..)
Please write an integer 1-10 in the following format:
Power/Quality/Comfort ex: 7/4/9
-The Adderall'd-up devRant Noob, Benby16
Boss: Can I have you design our website?
Me: Yeah, of course. I'll send you some details for the design and after you approve it, I can get started on it.
Boss: Okay, send me stuff you find.
Fast-forward to two days later, he decided going through my design checklist was a hassle so bought a WordPress theme and just asked me to make 3 banners for its slider with no given context and no help as far as design and aesthetics are concerned... way to get my hopes up then bring them down. And designing them is making me so sleepy, I took a bathroom trip to nap for a while because the Wi-Fi won't stop disconnecting either.3
Google : " LXLE is a lightweight distro, with a focus on visual aesthetics."
Me : Light and visual aesthetics , my laptop can handle it
*me downloading it and starting to use it
My laptop fan : bbrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRR1
When a co-worker has a 'multi-screen' desktop. and you find he has a 4:3, a 16:9 and a native laptop screen, all different brands, and none of the screens line up...1
Just stumbled on this little gem.
Apple's logic: 1+2+3 = 23
At this point I think Apple has just given up on quality. They are all about aesthetics nowadays.
Through life, I've heard some people say horror movies are bad, that they promote violence (usually religious people).
Of course I think that's pure bs, but I think I could provide one argument that is hard to deny, so here it goes, although I might go off rails at the end.
I'll preface with this: life itself is violent. Violence, the word, is mostly used to describe immoral inflictions of harm on other beings.
But you can also say that some deaths are violent by themselves too, event those that weren't caused by humans, like a disease or a natural disaster.
This would be the "visual" meaning of the word, "the way it looks", the shock of humans when observing something gruesome/violent.
That described, it's not hard to also think that technological advancements in modern western life has made such observations of violence very unfrequent for people.
And naturally, modern people get accustomed to the lack of these observations. So accustomed that when they happen they become traumatic.
Because of this, people react weirdly to death. One reaction is censoring the topic. Another reaction is trivializing it, as if it doesn't really matter.
Sometimes they can't even accept old people dying at 90, an awfully stupid reaction in my opinion.
Another interesting reaction is personifying diseases as if they were villains ruining lives intentionally.
Or at least that's what it feels until you look at them through a microscope and realize that diseases aren't more evil than bread changing flavour after toasting.
All of these irrationality and cowardice comes from low exposure to violence, and that's where horror movies balance things out.
Some diseases in the real life can put some of the worst horror movies to shame.
The human body itself is pending violence. Why? Because when you die all sort of worms eat your fucking flesh. And sometimes that happens even before you die.
We bury humans because of the diseases corpses transmit, but also because we don't like the spectacle and the aesthetics of the rotting process.
Just picture for a second bad things happening to your body, and if you feel that is making you too uncomfortable, then maybe you got too used to this too.
I think horror movies help us to remember the reality of our inminent and intrinsic violence.
In ancient times, you would live outdoors, stepping on dirt, and be very used to "bad" things happening to humans.
Nowadays, most homes are sterile clean, and it's unlikely to observe violence.
Oh, some family member is pucking blood and dying from something? Send em to a hospital, or an elderly care center. Don't need to witness that!
I understand and accept grief. What I don't understand or accept is the vilification of death, describing it as something wrong that shouldn't happen.
it almost feels like a burden, like you shouldn't die when you're young, that it's an unforgivable thing to happen.
Well thanks, society, you can't even fucking die in peace.
I would love to die (no suicide) in a mildly celebratory way, watching people around me smile. I think that would be a good ending for me.
But no. Most of my relatives would be fucking crying like the chickenshits they are, ruining it for me.
And that scares the shit out me: people usually say the scary part of dying is that they die alone.
Well that's what dying alone would mean to me: watching people cry instead of smiling at me.
When my grandma died at 80, with all the achievements she made, I considered her death a success, also considering how quick it was. And because of that I didn't mourn for too long.
In fact, I don't even consider her dead, and not because of some religious mumbo jumbo. I guess the memories are still alive in me, I don't know.
Some famous chunk of coal said once that he felt people don't believe they're gonna die. And I agree with him.
Another upside of horror movies is that they hurt nobody, which is why you can enjoy it and not get ptsd, unlink watching a snuff film.
I will also be fair and add that this might a be a cultural thing, but deep down desire for survival is a genetic thing could play a big part in this too.4
Wrote this on another thread but wanted to do a full post on it.
What is a game?
I like to distinguish between 1. entertainment, 2. games, 3. fun.
both ideally are 'fun' (conveying a sense of immersion, flow, or pleasure).
a game is distinct (usually) from entertainment by the presence of interaction, but certain minimalists games have so little decision making, practice, or interaction-learning that in practice they're closer to entertainment.
theres also the issue of "interesting" interaction vs uninteresting ones. While in broad terms, it really comes down to the individual, in aggregate we can (usefully) say some things, by the utility, are either games or not. For example if having interaction were sufficient to make something a game, then light switches could become a game.
now supposed you added multiple switches and you had to hit a sequence to open a door. Now thats a sort of "game". So we see games are toys with goals.
Now what is a toy?
There are two varieties of toy: impromptu toys and intentional toys.
An impromptu toy is anything NOT intended primarily, by design, to induce pleasure or entertainment when interacted with. We'll call these "devices" or "toys" with a lowercase t.
"Toys", made with the intent of entertainment (primarily or secondarily) we'll label with an uppercase T.
Now whether something is used with the intent behind its own design (witness people using dildos, sex toys, as slapstick and gag items lol), or whether the designer achieves their intent with the toy or item is another matter entirely.
But what about more atmospheric games? What about idle games? Or clickers?
Take clickers. In the degenerate case of a single button and a number that increases, whats the difference between a clicker and a calculator? One is a device (calculator) turned into an impromptu toy and then a game by the user's intent and goal (larger number). The second, is a game proper, by the designers intent. In the degenerate case of a badly designed game it devolves into a really shitty calculator.
Likewise in the case of atmospheric games, in the degenerate case, they become mere cinematic entertainment with a glorified pause/play button.
Now while we could get into the definition of *play*, I'll only briefly get into it because there are a number of broad definitions. "Play" is loosely: freely structured (or structured) interaction with some sort of pleasure as either the primary or secondary object, with or without a goal, thats it. And by this definition you can play with a toy, you can play a game, you can play with a lightswitch, hell you can play with yourself.
This of course leaves out goals, the idea of "interesting decisions" or decision making, and a variety of other important elements.
But what makes a good game?
A lot of elements go into making a good game, and it's not a stretch to say that a good game is a totality of factors. At the core of all "good" games is a focus on mechanics, aesthetics, story, and technology. So we can already see that what makes a good game is less of an either-or-categorization and more like a rating or scale across categories of design elements.
Broadly, while aesthetics and atmosphere might be more important in games like Journey (2012) by Thatonegamecompany, for players of games like Rimworld the mechanics and interactions are going to be more important.
In fact going a little deeper, mechanics are usually (but not always) equivalent to interactions. And we see this dichtonomy arise when looking at games like Journey vs say, Dwarf Fortress. But, as an aside, is it possible to have atmospheric games that are also highly interactive or have a strong focus on mechanics? This is often what "realistic" (as opposed to *immersive*) games try to accomplish in design. Done poorly they instead lead to player frusteration, which depending on player type may or may not be pleasureable (witness 'hardcore' games whos difficulty and focus on do-overs is the fun the game is designed for, like roguelikes, and we'll get to that in a moment), but without the proper player base, leads to breaking player flow and immersion. One example of a badly designed game in the roguelike genre would be Early Access Stoneshard, where difficulty was more related to luck and chance than player skill or planning. A large part of this was because of a poorly designed stealth system, where picking off a single enemy alerted *all enemies* nearbye, who would then *stay* alerted until you changed maps, negating tactics that roguelike players enjoy and are used to resorting to. This is an important case worth examining because it shows how minor designer choices in mechanical design can radically alter the final quality of the game. Some games instead chose the cheaper route of managing player *perceptions* with a pregame note: Darkest Dungeons and Amnesia TDD are just two I can think of.11
At my incubation place they put up these new, shinny tables and cupboards.
I was hoping maybe they will put a coffee machine. Instead they shifted the printers.
Talk about aesthetics.2
Headsup: if you're making a game, or want to, a good starting point is to ask a single question.
How do I want this game to feel?
A lot of people who make games get into it because they play and they say I wish this or that feature were different. Or they imagine new mechanics, or new story, or new aesthetics. These are all interesting approaches to explore.
If you're familiar with a lot of games, and why and how their designs work, starting with game
feel is great. It gives you a palette of ideas to riff on, without knowing exactly why it works, using your gut as you go. In fact a lot of designers who made great games used this approach, creating the basic form, and basically flew-blind, using the testing process to 'find the fun'.
But what if, instead of focusing on what emotions a game or mechanic evokes, we ask:
How does this system or mechanic alter the
*players behaviors*? What behaviors
*invoke* a given emotion?
And from there you can start to see the thread that connects emotion, and behavior.
In *Alien: Isolation*, the alien 'hunts' for the player, and is invulnerable. Besides its menacing look, and the dense atmosphere, its invincibility
has a powerful effect on the player. The player is prone to fear and running.
By looking at behavior first, w/ just this one game, and listing the emotions and behaviors
in pairs "Fear: Running", for example, you can start to work backwards to the systems and *conditions* that created that emotion.
In fact, by breaking designs down in this manner, it becomes easy to find parallels, and create
these emotions in games that are typically outside the given genre.
For example, if you wanted to make a game about vietnam (hold the overuse of 'fortunate son') how might we approach this?
One description might be: Play as a soldier or an insurgent during the harsh jungle warfare of vietnam. Set ambushes, scout through dense and snake infested underbrush. Identify enemy armaments to outfit your raids, and take the fight to them.
Mechanics might include
1. crawl through underbrush paths, with events to stab poisonous snacks, brush away spiders or centipedes, like the spiders in metro, hold your breathe as armed enemy units march by, etc.
2. learn to use enfilade and time your attacks.
3. run and gun chases. An ambush happens catching you off guard, you are immediately tossed behind cover, and an NPC says "we can stay and fight but we're out numbered, we should run." and the system plots out how the NPCs hem you in to direct you toward a series of
retreats and nearest cover (because its not supposed to be a battle, but a chase, so we want the player to run). Maybe it uses these NPC ambushes to occasionally push the player to interesting map objectives/locations, who knows.
4. The scouting system from State of Decay. you get a certain amount of time before you risk being 'spotted', and have to climb to the top of say, a building, or a tower, and prioritize which objects in the enemy camp to identity: trucks, anti-air, heavy guns, rockets, troop formations, carriers, comms stations, etc. And that determines what is available to 'call in' as support on the mission.
And all of this, b/c you're focusing on the player behaviors that you want, leads to the *emotions* or feelings you want the player to experience.
Point is, when you focus on the activities you want the player to *do* its a more reliable way of determining what the player will *feel*, the 'role' they'll take on, which is exactly what any good designer should want.
If we return back to Alien: Isolation, even though its a survival horror game, can we find parallels outside that genre? Well The Last of Us for one.
How so? Well TLOU is a survival third-person shooter, not a horror game, and it shows. Theres
not the omnipresent feeling of being overpowered. The player does use stealth, but mostly it's because it serves the player's main role: a hardened survivor whos a capable killer, struggling through a crapsack world. The similarity though comes in with the boss battles against the infected.
The enemy in these fights is almost unstoppable, they're a tank, and the devs have the player running from them just to survive. Many players cant help but feel a little panic as they run for their lives, especially with the superbly designed custom death scenes for joel. The point is, mechanics are more of a means to an end, and if games are paintings, and mechanics are the brushes, player behavior is the individual strokes and player emotion is the color. And by examining TLOU in this way, it becomes obvious that while its a third person survival shooter, the boss fights are *overtones* of Alien: Isolation.
And we can draw that comparison because like bach, who was deaf, and focused on the keys and not the sound, we're focused on player behavior and not strictly emotions.2
Sooo many fucking visual and functional glitches in iOS!
Just had my Files app stuck on a file preview. Couldn’t scroll, close or share the file. Closed the app, restarted the app, opened it again with no luck.
Had to offload and reinstate the app to get it working.
Apple is making sure that I go back to Android for my next phone.
To think that such an expensive phone has so many UI/UX glitches is infuriating! I like the overall aesthetics of iOS but these glitches/bugs/whatever-the-fucks are just plain frustrating.2
"Design must be functional and functionality must be translated into visual aesthetics, without any reliance on gimmicks that have to be explained." - Ferdinand A. Porsche
Once again, I'm late to the party, wondering how in the world I never heard of ranger before yesterday. For me, it's an absolute game changer. It beats mc, the previous only console-based file manager I've seen, handily in terms of features, flexibility, aesthetics, and ease of use.
This will easily replace finder at work, and pcmanfm at home. It's in every major repo, including debian, redhat, arch, gentoo, and suse variants, and is available through homebrew too.2
Aesthetics are important
It had been a while since I had a look into the Yii framework. Went into their website today. I was surprised to see that they had changed the design of a lot of it. This is particularly good since I believe that one thing that really makes devs(particularly web since most of us are full stack) ignore a tool is the presentation of it on its respective website. That being said, it is really hard for any PHP framework to go ahead and compete with how really good looking and easy to navigate the Laravel website is.
I know this might seem as a shallow thing to look at. After all, a tool can be amazing and have a 90's looking website, and this happens a lot in certain communities. But all in all I am pleased that the Yii framework website is looking as good.
Then again Rails(the Ruby framework) has a "looks like a toy" website and the framework is really powerful and advanced.
This aesthetics in physics that is hard to explain to someone outside the field. How beautiful for example that you can express the whole classical mechanics in just 1 equation and electro magnetism in 4, that sense of symmetry and clarity they express. Essentially in what Einstein and others believed: that the universe is a orderly place not chaos and that its rules can be understood by our crippled minds.
And I think there is a similar notion in code. As physicists are driven to more general and powerful theories that shall some time explain all interactions of matter that we know of, programmers, I believe, strive for similar ideals: brevity, conciseness, generality, abstraction, powerfulness of your symbolic system - one line of code to end it all.
When I had +2222 of reputation on stackoverflow, when if a user vote up+5 then I do a mistake to loose -5 so my aesthetical reputation remains 22221
!rant Just an observation. There is a lot of discussion about syntax. Should it be tabs or spaces or should the opening bracket be on the same line as the method/function. There is 101 languages and standards. Syntax varies and you just can't learn it all.
What is more important? Result or the aesthetics? If you come into a project you adapt. You use the syntax everyone else is using. If you are a part of starting a project you agree on rules of engagement and stick to them so the team works at maximum efficiency. If you lead a project you define the rules by adapting to your teams habits. Because in the end it's the working product we are after.
Sometimes i think what will be best combination of
(Raw Engineering + Aesthetics...)
According to MIT and some other programmers, as I interpreted it from their video, Computer Science is not a science, but rather an art:
I'm not sure this is the truth.
First things first. Definition:
- In order for a field to be a science, it has to have an internationally recognized body (such as physics has one). Does computer science have one?
Furthermore, one of the definitions of science:
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:"
- In order for a field to be considered art, its essence has to be about aesthetics.
Now, it's true that Computer Science is not about computers (as they are mere physical manifestations and tools that we use to practice the essence of what are abstract models that we theorize, much like Mathematics is not about numbers).
Like is said in the video (3:39 and example at 4:06): Computer Science is about formalizing intuition of process: input, algorithm, output, the precise imperative knowledge of 'how to' vs. Geometry ('what is' true, i.e. declarative knowledge).
Now, if we're formalizing and being precise, are we being scientific or theoretical? It could be argued we're then being theoretical, except for the case of Applied Computer Science, where things get more scientific (introducing observable proof).
Further elaborate discussion is welcome.
I don't get it, why having more than one decorator looks "weird"? that's idiomatic Python AFAIK, that's sounds more like nitpicking on aesthetics :/1
"Any system that sees aesthetics as irrelevant, that separates the artist from the product, that fragments the work of the individual, or creates by committee, or makes mincemeat of the creative process will in the long run diminish not only the product but the maker as well." - Paul Rand