flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > Women can't code. Period!

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 258

revolution wrote:
"Art" would suggest to me form over function. Is that what others here mean by "art"?

Well, it's 'ars', really, but keep on.

_________________
ohne love
Post 21 Mar 2017, 15:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 258

system error wrote:

To be or not to be...

ay there's an error.

_________________
ohne love
Post 21 Mar 2017, 16:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6650
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
some of the definition for art

1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"

2. works produced by human creative skill and imagination.

3. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

4. subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
"the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible"

5. a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
"the art of conversation"

i am attracted to the idea presented by revolution, i find this very interesting!
form over function
Post 21 Mar 2017, 17:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7637
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

system error wrote:
Naaaaaahhhhhh...

Yeeeeeepppppp ...
Post 22 Mar 2017, 08:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7637
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
i am attracted to the idea presented by revolution

I misread your sentence and thought that you had written:

"i am attracted to revolution"

Well, we have already seen his/her artistic prowess in the modified sunset photo with added orange color!

Back to the "form over function" issue.

What function does an artwork ultimately serve?

The form of an artwork serves its function: To let the viewers and/or audience appreciate and enjoy the beauty of life.

Wink
Post 22 Mar 2017, 08:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 558

revolution wrote:
So my question was: Do others see "art" as more about form and less about function?

What do you mean with "function"? Like practical usage? Why would art have any (inverse) correlation with that? Makes no sense.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and of course art can be beautiful for a certain person. Whether that is beautiful code or not, but of course it has to "work".

Do you know the demoscene? People who write super small software doing crazy stuff (usually rendering animation with effects). That's art. Does it not have function? It has function like any other entertainment software (obviously limited compared to say, a video game, but it still has its respective function). People think shaving every last byte is beautiful in that case, and all sorts of hacks "elegant" and to be honest I agree with them Razz

Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with function. It could be beautiful depending on person or elegant or artistic, but its function is not impacted by that in any way (neither positively or negatively).

Even if someone only finds super verbose comments in source code as "art" it doesn't impact function at all (especially not the output compiled binary), just makes it annoying to scroll through Razz
Post 22 Mar 2017, 16:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 14924
Location: 6EQUJ5
So, Furs, you basically agree that form and function are orthogonal?
Post 22 Mar 2017, 21:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6650
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
what it means by orthogonal? if somebody care to debrief me,
Post 22 Mar 2017, 21:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 14924
Location: 6EQUJ5

sleepsleep wrote:
what it means by orthogonal? if somebody care to debrief me,

Did you forget about my website?
Post 22 Mar 2017, 22:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6435
Location: Kraków, Poland

revolution wrote:
So, Furs, you basically agree that form and function are orthogonal?

I feel that you are trying to frame this in a misleading way. While form and function are orthogonal in principle and it's hard to argue against it, my point was that if you forget the function and focus on form only, you are most probably not going to make a good art. It may depend on a type of works, but when working with languages, both in case of writing novels or software, the actual content is often even more important than form. I believe that if we grade the quality of art (measured, let's say, by the statistical appreciation) both a good form and good content (or function) are going to be needed to get a good score, and this is how they are going to be correlated.
Post 22 Mar 2017, 22:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6650
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

revolution wrote:
Did you forget about my website?


nope, i use them all the while,

but still i hope you could explain what you mean by that through simple words, it is ok if it is orthogonal is the most simplest form of word that could represent your idea, Embarassed mean i need more years to understand that,

i came up with the following definition for "art"
- the unique / creative way of doing / making something and nothing,

i will use compiler in this explanation,

- writing a compiler is art,

- when compiler process input to produce output file, the process is art created by compiler, which from another pov is also art created by the person who wrote that compiler,

- every output will impact and having some sort of effect on somebody else, even if it does nothing, the fact imo it is actually very hard to make something which produce no effect / function,

- idk if it is possible to classify art into good art of bad art, because that is infinite perspective issue,

- imo, when the uniqueness become general, like everybody know how to make it, that is the moment that art losing its value,

- imo, coding something beautiful, is an art, and it doesn't have to compiled, compute to be called art, ( in fact, it is nearly impossible for it to have no impact / effect /function ) eg, those source code you saw in film, Embarassed
Post 23 Mar 2017, 02:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7637
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

revolution wrote:
So, Furs, you basically agree that form and function are orthogonal?

I feel that you are trying to frame this in a misleading way.

In addition to tricking other forum members into visiting his/her fake website, revolution always tries to mislead/distract the opponents in a discussion/debate like this. I pointed out such a thing not long ago:

https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=190589#190589

Forum members are advised to watch out for his/her trick.

Evil or Very Mad
Post 23 Mar 2017, 02:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
system error



Joined: 01 Sep 2013
Posts: 521
@sleepsleep

Form ever follows function.

Look it up.
Post 23 Mar 2017, 02:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7637
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
what it means by orthogonal? if somebody care to debrief me,

We use such math adjectives in a figurative sense:

parallel: very similar / almost the same

orthogonal: distinct / very different / opposite / antagonistic

Wink
Post 23 Mar 2017, 02:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
system error



Joined: 01 Sep 2013
Posts: 521
I don't know where you guys are coming from, but Form Follows Function (FFF) is a common Software Engineering / HCI talking point.

My recent suggestion to Tomasz about using the capital letters FLAT ASSEMBLER for forum title is a genuine FFF suggestion.
Post 23 Mar 2017, 03:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7637
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

system error wrote:
I don't know where you guys are coming from

Most of the forum members are from the third planet from the sun. At least one forum member is from an exoplanet.

Wink
Post 23 Mar 2017, 04:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 558

YONG wrote:
We use such math adjectives in a figurative sense:

parallel: very similar / almost the same

orthogonal: distinct / very different / opposite / antagonistic

Wink

But that's wrong. It's not "opposite" or "very different", it's more like parallel in a proper sense of the word. That is, it goes on independent of the other.

Now I'm not saying that form cannot require function. It can, but like most art it depends on the scenario and people (i.e. subjective). What I meant to say is that it's subjective.

If someone finds elegantly implemented algorithms beautiful, then is that form or function? I mean, elegantly implemented means they WORK obviously, otherwise they're not really "implemented algorithms" but implemented a different algorithm with broken results that doesn't work.

The answer is that the artistic part is form, but in this particular case, the form requires function (on top of it being elegant, obviously) since that's the requirements that make it "good form" for the artist. It's not a "set in stone" or "law of physics", like I said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So it depends on the person. But it being art is not subjective, it's fact. Whether you actually find it beautiful or not though, that's subjective. Wink

If it wasn't art, then you wouldn't care how it is implemented if it "just works".

EDIT: note that it doesn't mean form = function. It means form requires function, but that is just one of its requirements. Obviously I am talking about this specific example. When I said "it's independent" I meant that it can be defined independently, depending on situation or person. Cause it's subjective.

Someone might like code that doesn't work, in that case, form has no function requirement. He would be an artist, but not the kind of artist Tomasz refers to Wink
Post 23 Mar 2017, 12:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7637
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
But that's wrong. It's not "opposite" or "very different", it's more like parallel in a proper sense of the word.

I am shocked! Shocked

Orthogonal means perpendicular or at right angle (to something).

How on earth can we twist the meaning of "perpendicular" to "more like parallel in a proper sense"?

Please enlighten me.

Rolling Eyes
Post 23 Mar 2017, 12:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 502
Location: New Zealand

YONG wrote:
parallel: very similar / almost the same

orthogonal: distinct / very different / opposite / antagonistic

Wink

Perhaps a more informative definition to help in this "debate" is:

parallel: dependent

orthogonal: independent


e.g. we use orthogonal axes to represent independent variables.

So the question is one of dependence or independence between form and function, rather than any perception of "similarity" or "difference".

Very similar things can be either dependent or independent... Wink

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 23 Mar 2017, 20:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6650
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

system error wrote:
I don't know where you guys are coming from, but Form Follows Function (FFF) is a common Software Engineering / HCI talking point.


thanks for the information, learn something new, Embarassed

wikipedia wrote:
Form follows function is a principle associated with modernist architecture and industrial design in the 20th century. The principle is that the shape of a building or object should be primarily based upon its intended function or purpose.


so best form is the form that best match the function, so when conflict happened between both, any result that yield to better function will be preferred, am i right?


YONG wrote:
We use such math adjectives in a figurative sense:
parallel: very similar / almost the same
orthogonal: distinct / very different / opposite / antagonistic


thanks,
how to link this concept into our form and function discussion?

1. (parallel) form and function should be treated equally, they both having same weight?

2. (orthogonal) form should be in focus instead of function, or function should be in focus compare to form?

3. (parallel ~ dependent) form and function can't be separated in the sense they complement each other?

4. (orthogonal ~ independent) form could exists without function, so as function would exists without form?

i guess i am confused.
Post 23 Mar 2017, 23:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.