> "Code is more than just a tool," I heard he said. "It's our craft. It's our muscle. And we need to train it. Chop wood. Carry water. Code."
I seem to hear this comparison between skilled manual labor (especially carpentry) and coding come up all the time. Yet I never hear writers or mathematicians making that comparison, and I rarely hear engineers or scientists in other disciplines make it. Maybe that's just because I listen more to programmers, but I think there's an actual difference, and I wonder why that is.
I also wonder whether or not there's any connection between writing better code and using "best practices" in all your google searches. I suspect not.
Good writers will definitely tell you that practice makes perfect. That studying techniques and understanding the theory behind them will make you a better writer. Chop the wood, understand the different kinds of axes of different kinds of wood, perhaps even investigate how axes are made and what it takes to design one.
I think in science this is more invisible, because it is a natural part of the work. A scientist is naturally encouraged to scrutinize his knowledge and techniques to discover whether something can be improved, abstracted, done differently. However, I believe many would learn a lot from conscious attempts at that and especially in attempting to understand their process and way of working, instead of just their knowledge and tools.
As for engineering: there are often many procedures in place to make sure even an inexperienced engineer will produce solid work, often supervised and reviewed by more experienced ones. Practices that are also in place where good software engineering happens.
A lot of errors in the medical profession are attributable to the same mistakes as made in bad software engineering: a lone gunman mentality; a lack of communication and a lack of (following) procedures.
> I think there's an actual difference
I think so to. I think the reason is that in programming it is often quickly clear whether a product is deficient. When it is, it is usually clear what caused the deficiency. Often it is even attributable to (a) specific person(s). That has caused many programmers to be very conscious of how often they fail, which has caused them to be very introspective of how they work and how they can improve it.
Is your question, do writers and mathematicians also speak of elegance and aesthetic in their work? Do writers engage and practice free writing and side-projects to hone their skills, beside whatever they have to do to pay the bills?
Expand your world man, there's so much more out there.
Obviously elegance, aesthetics, and a desire for personal improvement are common factors between these professions. But I've spent a lot of time with writers, scientists, and mathematicians, and I've very rarely heard any of them analogize the process of improving at their work to carpentry or other skilled physical labor. But I hear this analogy from programmers all the time. Programmers talk about sharpening their saw instead of talking about writing another draft, even though to my mind programming is much closer to writing than it is to carpentry. That's what I wonder about.
I seem to hear this comparison between skilled manual labor (especially carpentry) and coding come up all the time. Yet I never hear writers or mathematicians making that comparison, and I rarely hear engineers or scientists in other disciplines make it. Maybe that's just because I listen more to programmers, but I think there's an actual difference, and I wonder why that is.
I also wonder whether or not there's any connection between writing better code and using "best practices" in all your google searches. I suspect not.