Versus Software

Ever since I read this book a long time ago, I’ve always enjoyed art history and it’s analysis. I like how art, specially painting and drawing is a form of craftsmanship, how one evolves with it in time. I do enjoy looking at great contemporary artist like

Anry Nemo

Daniel Lieske

As well as old wizards like Dali

and Caravaggio

One thing I find particular interesting is how clearly explicit is a GOOD artist from a good one. Sure we can go down the path of Picasso being top notch and a genius while not being the best painter in the world, but my focus right now is in skill.

You can see, an artist is good when he masters several techniques like body proportions, shading, lighting,  diffusion, blur, meaning, semantics, and so on. To me all the artist above mastered this and it’s clearly visible even to laymen their genius.

That’s a thing a I refer to as the difference between masons and sculptors. Both work with the same raw materials, sometimes even the same tools, but their product is what separates the Pieta from simply another wall.

A sculptor understands the material he works to a point of such mastery that there is no limitation to what he can construct, all he needs is just time and resources. A mason while he may be good at it and could even attempt such a feat, in the end he would never reach such level.

There is clearly a distinction between the two, but what causes it? This change, that makes a beginner that is once a mason become a sculptor? What is the road to mastery?

I ask myself this question because I often draw parallels in between art and software development. Because I could just as well ask the same questions:

What defines a master developer? How does one become a genius in software construction? What is the road to mastery?

It’s easy to discern a great artist from an average one, all we have to do is look at their work, but how could we do this with developers? I usually read this in forums or talk with colleges and it usually revolves around with –

A great developer:

• Knows many languages
• Knows difficult languages
• Develops a lot
• Develops for fun
• Knows a lot about development
• Read a bunch of books
• Wrote a bunch of articles or even books
• Develops big products
• Never/rarely has bugs

And so on and so forth. Personally I think these criteria are fine but in the end, with them, you can’t discern a good mason from a sculptor. Knowing many languages doesn’t mean mastery of software construction, developing big products can be bottled down to trivial tasks such as mundane functions, lack of bugs can be either due to an easy to work environment or lack of new challenges.

My point is you can counter each one of those statements, thus failing to reach anywhere when trying to label an individual as a mason or a sculptor. What I believe is the way to go is something more along the lines of:

• A mason, given time, is able to solve most if not all known problems.
• An individual that is in between the two finds problems that haven’t been asked before.
• A sculptor is able to answer them.

I say this mainly because of my reference of what I consider to be great sculptors and their history, guys like Carmack, Abrash, Sweeney, Bram Cohen and so on. These guys managed to find problems no one faced before, or if they did no one answered, and then managed to find a solution of their own.

They did this because they knew their developing languages, their work environment, the machine down to the bitwise, to the electrical signal, to its deepest mathematical roots.

That to me is mastery. These are great artists. These are software sculptors.