Is software development more like building a bridge or is it more like painting a painting?
I hadn’t heard this question personally before, but honestly I think it’s a mix of the two. Programming is definitely an (abstract) art form in my opinion. There’s so much to the expression of how code could work, and being able to make that a reality very closely aligns with a painter painting.
I also see the other side though, the bridge building engineer that needs to make sure there are many factors working together to solve the problem effectively. It’s almost as if a painter is building a bridge or something.
I also really like the illustrative story here, but I also think it touches on the fact that not every design decision can be made better by a programmer’s input. I think it takes a user-oriented developer to come up with a suggestion like Andy from the story, and they aren’t as common as we’re all told to believe as of late.
I think that developers can come up with ideas like that if given the opportunity, but I also think there is a fair share of developers that don’t want to, they understand that designers were put in their place to do the designing, and developers build that out. Questioning decisions is applicable to a point, of course, but I don’t think we can apply it to every design change that comes down the pipe. I don’t think the article says that in the least, but I think it’s important to see that other side as well.