Hacking - Art or Science? 220
An anonymous reader asks: "The argument regarding the principle nature of hacking - be it an art or a science is not a new one. This paper hopes to discuss both the meaning of the term 'hack' and the underlying arguments for it being defined as an art or a science, in reference to the base principles and basic methodologies of the discipline. So in your opinion, is hacking art or science?"
To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:5, Insightful)
(Now that I've got your attention, and had a good chuckle...)
Let me put this to rest, once and for all. "Hacking" is not something to strive for, no matter what your defintion. What "hacking" is, is an expression of a natural problem-solving ability that all humans have. This problem solving ability can give us MacGyver-level talents allowing us to fashion a solution to any situation. Such innate talent is a good thing.
However, expressing it as hacking means that you're creating short term or disruptive solutions rather than long term solutions that will last. When hacking meets the discipline of Engineering, all hell breaks loose. Sure, that ugly hacked code you put in now does the trick in a pinch. But if it's not replaced with a long term solution in a hurry, it will cost the company large amounts of money in support and maintenece.
That's where true Engineering steps in. As an engineer (or architect as the case may be) you have a responsibility to weigh in all the competing factors to produce a solution that is both long term and inexpensive to maintain. Your solution may have to go through hell and back and still get the job done. You can never quite be certain of what situation your code will go through, especially if people's lives and/or fortunes depend on it.
So in short, leave the hacking in college. It was a lot of fun when you had raw, unfocused talent, but you should be more mature than that now. Use what you know to build a real solution and leave the "hacking" to the next generation of kids.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2, Insightful)
Most certainly, people like Edison and George Washington Carver and Eli Whitney were hackers. I'm rather glad they and others didn't leave their hacking behind when they left college (assuming, of course, that the
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, I've heard Einstein's Theory of Relativity described as a beautiful hack
Einstein didn't *change* anything. How can it be a hack? Rather, he produced a theory describing the Universe according to scientific method.
Most certainly, people like Edison and George Washington Carver and Eli Whitney were hackers.
Actually, they were experimenters. They experimented until they found what they were looking for.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
The entry for hacker says, in part:
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
And for hack it includes:
2. n. An incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that produces exactly what is needed.
4. vt. To work on something (typically a program). In an immediate sens
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
That aside, I would answer the question as: Hacking is the artful application of science.
-nB
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
Ps, why arn't we debating the terms 'art' and 'science', art has come to mean a lot more than paintings on a wall, and is science strictly limited to scientific method...?
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
But this depends on context. If you have 3 days left to finish a project anything that get's it done FAST is elegant in that it's exactly what you want. However, if your designing a system and you come up with an elegant solution your "great" hack might be using LISP as your scripting language to greatly increase the system's flexibility while using a bunch of C++ code to leverage existing liburarys.
Einstein's hack was to stop thinking of the would in terms of
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
i thought hacking was overcomming problems in a short susinct(1) and sometimes dirty ways. in this way, e=mc^2 is a "hack" because its so short and memorable.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's an example: estimating the density of a composite material by dividing the dry weight by the volume, as determined from the measured hydrostatic pressure caused by immersing the sample in water (weighed down with a paper-clip, and supported
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
- It may be perfectly fine to describe a 'hack' you came up with for getting around a particular web-design problem, and the term may be used quite freely, however...
- Use the
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that "hack" and "hacking" are extremely badly defined. In fact, it manages to have a few completely opposite meanings. A word that means both beautifully elegant sublimely crafted work, and crisis time horrible stopgap measure is not very well defined. Let alone the fact that the majority of people who use the word use it to mean breaking into computers. You can have heated fights about whether something is a hack or not, where both sides are equally right and completely opposite.
A bit like with both art and science actually, but not quite. Art is notoriously difficult to define, but we all still have a similar idea about what the word means. A bit of opinion - the fact that something is or isn't functional has no relation to whether it is or isn't art.
Science is well defined. Science is a process of finding out how things work, by thinking up a way how the world might be, and then testing that idea really rigorously. It's just that there's groups of people with agendas who try to make it look like there's a discussion alive, trying to get FSMism, creationism, moon landing denial, global warming denial, Bigfoot etc into scientific discussions. But that's just flamebait with an agenda.
So I'd say that hacking isn't really either, except that perhaps those really elegant beautiful hacks could be seen as art.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hah. So when people calls crackers "hackers" we get upset because they stretch and break the definition, but we get to call everyone we like "hacker" just to make ourselves feel proud and smug? It either goes both ways, or none. I prefer none.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, if we're going to discuss historical hackers, we can't leave out Lizzie Borden [wikipedia.org], can we?
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
I'd say that this comment puts you in the category of folks who don't understand what the word means.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:3, Insightful)
Eventually many "hacks" migrate into the realm of being traditional. Especially in the early computer gaming industry or the "demo scene".
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:3, Insightful)
"However, expressing it as hacking means that you're creating short term or disruptive solutions rather than long term solutions that will last. When hacking meets the discipline of Engineering, all hell breaks loose."
What is long-term? Days, months, years, decades? Does it not depend on the problem? Engineering is no more discipline than it is hacking away at problems. Like two sid
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it does. As you say, Engineering can have many of the same "Art vs. Science" questions that "hacking" does.
That is completely backwards. In college you learn the formulas, the equations, etc. In life, you hack, with what you know.
To be clear, I think that hacking is "unfocused engineering". So you "hack" while you're still learning, but you hopefully outgrow it for the rest of your life.
Consider the following parts.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
I sure hope not...
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
Epistemology dammit (Score:2)
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question! (Score:2)
I'm certainly not trying to make hacks into sounding like anything horrible. My only point is that "hacking" per se is simply unfocused applied engineering. When one matures as an engineer, one tends t
It's neither (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's neither (Score:3, Interesting)
As for art vs. science, "hacking" is clearly an art. Debugging is a science. This really isn't a hard concept. Art is a creative process, science is a tool for finding truth. Do you use the scientific method when you sit to to write code? Of course not. However, when you look at your (or someone else's) broken code, and want t
Re:It's neither (Score:2)
Art is a creative process
Art is a creative process, but not all creative processes are art. I gave a working definition for art in another post, which I'll reproduce here:
Re:It's neither (Score:2)
But, I have no real desire to argue sematics (or aesthetics for that matter). But, I will say your art definition is explicitly tied to intent, which is kind of dangerous. Certainly any programmer who has called Scheme "beautiful" could argue that their s
Re:It's neither (Score:5, Informative)
The term Hacking was coined at the MIT model railroad club and it's absolute definition can be read in, of all things: "Hackers" ISBN: 0141000511 a book about the computer revolution from the inside. A very good and entertaining read I might add.
The original meaning of the word, that was immediatly lost when the media and people who weren't hackers but wanted to be got hold of it, was: To make something do something it wasn't necessarily designed to do.
I believe it came about when one of the MIT engineers, working on a brand new and unbelieveably expensive new computer donated to the school added functionality to the computer by jamming a screwdriver into one of the circuits.
Re:It's neither (it isn't engineering either) (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Programming is definitely NOT engineering. Not even necessarily software engineering. Some programming is part of software engineering, but not even close to all of it.
How can people claim any ownership to the title "engineering" when they refuse to follow any kind of process. Refuse to plan. Refuse to design. Refuse to analyze. Refuse to manage anything. Refuse to follow standards. Refuse to be rigorous in their duties.
People love to throw around the title "software engineer" when they mean "programmer". Don't get me wrong, not every piece of software needs to be engineered. Not even close. But most programmers in my 12 years of experience aren't engineers, period. But most of them wanted to be called "software engineers".
Hacking may have some engineering elements and even some artistic elements. But most of it is brute force application of technique.
Re:It's neither (it isn't engineering either) (Score:2)
Here's the main difference:
Engineers take responsibility for their work. Almost all software developers offer no warranty, no guarantee, they don't carry a bond to cover damages li
Re:It's neither (Score:2)
I think you are wrong, anything can be art, even washing the floor, if you do it right, is an art.
Re:It's also a Crime (Score:2)
Re:It's neither (Score:2)
Re:It's neither (Score:2)
And don't forget as pornographic as in "I hacked her back door."
Neither. (Score:5, Funny)
I hack... (Score:2, Funny)
Or for the Zen masters:
What is the sound of one hand hacking?
Re:I hack... (Score:2)
Re:I hack... (Score:2)
struct person *me=hack?malloc(sizeof(struct person)):NULL;
No, perl is (Score:2)
Re:Neither. (Score:2)
art or science (Score:3, Funny)
I think writing is an art.
Why does everything have to fall in one category? (Score:2)
Why can't.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As defined by wikipedia Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity and/or imagination.
Science = Reasoned investigation or study...
Re:Why can't.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't thought about how to define art, but I would say it's something intended to inspire a philosophical thought or emotion in another person. Based on that definition, programming (or any craft) would not qualify as art.
I'm sure people could nitpick my definition, but I think it would cover things we would traditionally think as art. The important part is that intent counts.
Art? Science? Semantics? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hacking (Score:2, Interesting)
Real Genius (Score:2, Funny)
offtopic fave quote from Real Genius (Score:2)
"Not right now"
"A girl's got to have her standards"
Computer science (Score:5, Informative)
Hacking is a form of computer science.
Re:Computer science (Score:2)
Does it have to be either? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear this question over and over from some people. This question seems a little too academic and removed from reality-- if a discipline doesn't fit your narrow view of "Art or Science", perhaps the view is wrong.
If anything, I'd say hacking could loosely be called a craft, in the same way that any trade could be considered a craft--woodcraft, glasswork, gardening, auto mechanic or, just for fun, witchcraft (Hackers do mysterious things by reciting long incantations!).
Eventually many craftspeople are able to think outside the instruction manual and discover new ways to work their craft in ways that it wasn't intended to do.
Re:Does it have to be either? (Score:2)
Re:Does it have to be either? (Score:2)
Drawing is most definitely something that can be taught. I used to be completely pathetic, until I learned the "magic" secret. Drawing is about learning to see, not learning to move the pencil. If you do the exercises in this book [amazon.com], I guarantee that inside of a couple weeks, you'll be able to draw similar to the picture on the cover. No one ever believes me, but I'm not kidding. Drawing from l
Re:Does it have to be either? (Score:2)
Re:Does it have to be either? (Score:2)
If you do have that grasp of the subject, though, it's a different matter, just as it is for those who can draw an
Yes and No (Score:2)
Their are hacks that are beautiful design solutions, constructed by someone who knows what they are doing. Sometimes they are the result of being "the new guy" on a five year old spaghetti code POS. Othertimes they are necessity of invention.
For example, one trick I use in pre-generics Java, is casting to enforce type during deep copies of collections:
Re:Does it have to be either? (Score:2)
I was never a Einsteinien physics expert, but too often it seemed like my physics friends kept trying to cram 'light' into a model that only supported "Wave" or "Particle". Since light exhibits traits of both a wave and a particle, perhaps a dual-model is flawed?
Not that light's wave/particle duality is a simple question or anything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Another take on this... (Score:3, Interesting)
(c) None of the above (Score:5, Funny)
but... (Score:2)
and art also a science?
Er... (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean neither of the two disciplines describe perfectly what hacking is. Then again, parallels can be drawn between hacking and either discipline. So, I think the answer is both.
Hardly a "media bastardised" definition (Score:2)
Then came the early 90's.
All the kids that took CS to become "Hackers" found out that it was often a very less than honorable profession. Since their underinflated ego didn't like the name "programmer", they started to lift the term hacker for themselve, and replace the negative with the label cracker.
Those of us that were there, and awake during the late 70's and early 80's know exactly what a "hacker" is.
"Cracker" may be more appropriate these days, but it is the "bastardised" de
Hacking (Score:3)
The less I see of it the easier my life becomes. Usually I have to spend hours fixing their crap before I can do my job. Often I just throw it away.
I have better questions (Score:3, Interesting)
The beauty of this argument is
You know it's a great paper when your conclusion is that your argument is completely irrelevant.
And it is, too. Why does it matter whether hacking is classified as art or science? What effect would it have on the way hacking is perceived? Who cares?
Now, if you just wanted to talk about computer science (in terms of applied math, not engineering), I think the art/science question is better suited. Of all the schools in the world that teach CS, how many locate their CS department in the school of engineering, and how many in the school of letters and sciences? Why? Does the context of the CS program affect the quality of its graduates?
Neither... (Score:3, Insightful)
just a simple question... (Score:2)
"Hacking" (Score:3, Funny)
None of the above (Score:3, Insightful)
It's engineering plain and simple. To dress it up as anything else undermines the skill that is envolved in creating good code. The dictionary (dictionary.com) defines engineering as
The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.if that doesn't define writing code I don't know what does. There is nothing wrong with being an engineer.
Sometimes it's an art... (Score:2)
The most experience I have with "hacking" would be to patch Japanese games so that they start displaying English instead. While the majority of the expertise needed and used is more of a science, like knowing how the underlying operating system/hardware works or how images and placed on the screen, the extra step required for a good, elegant hack is something that's more like an art. You really have to start getting creative when you need to figure out how to modify the code given serious size constraint
I think it's both (Score:2)
Both use algorithms, cooking's are malleable, baking's are not.
Many things in programming are both: if the results aren't correct, it's not science; if the code is ugly, it's not art.
Of science, engineering, art, and hacking. (Score:2)
Second, I see a difference between engineering and hacking in terms of knowability of the outcome. If you can design a product or solve a problem from start to finish, without much o
Poisonally (Score:2)
I believe it more accurately describes the everyday routine of IT.
Also, that would lift the expression 'Not worth a tinker's dam' back out of obscurity.
I had tinkers for ancestors...
We used to fix everything whether it was broken or not!
Not one, not constant. (Score:2)
Oh...I know! I know! Me! Me! (Score:3, Interesting)
PS Thanks to the complete Circus Clown's Fire Drill that has been the attempt to re-re-re-define the word "hacker" from the last quarter of the 20th century into this one, there is officially no such thing as hacking. The number of mis-percieved mis-definitions of the word surpassed the total human population about 1996 (yes, I wrote it down) and thus freed of the confines of mere space-time continuum, has increased exponentially ever since, which explains why each person can define the word five different ways and have *none* of them agree with anybody else's five different definitions.
This is where black holes come from. I nominate that, along with words like "Tao" and "mu", we puny mortals simply abandon the word back to the Ancient Ones from whence it came, admit that our shriveled husks of cortexes are incapable of fathoming such a deep concept, and hereafter relegate the word to the ranks of words which, if named, are not their true selves.
Which will spare us the upcoming inconclusive debate, now looming over this thread, over what hacking is for the 998.8E+999 time. Because I can't sit through another one. And to ensure I don't, I'm...I'm...I'm HOLDING THE EASTER BUNNY HOSTAGE! Yes! Drop the flamegun, or the lepus gets it right between the oculi!!! And there'll be no more Cadbury chocolate eggs for any of you!
Hacking = Art( Science ) ^ Elegance (Score:2)
Snooze (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the Source (Score:3, Funny)
That is not the company image that would win me points with my boss.
Boss: "That is a rather inappropriate coffee cup [spreadshirt.net] you have there. Please don't bring it to work."
Me: "But our network security company gave it to me!"
Boss: "You're fired."
I guess I'm just showing my age.
And yes, my boss does talk in HTML.
Art and Science: is it Art or Science? (Score:2)
Hacking - Desert Topping of Floorwax? (Score:2)
What about terrorism? (Score:2)
Hacking - Desert Topping or Floorwax? (Score:2)
Duped my own fucking post. because I type 'of' when I shoulda typed 'or'.
Science...but it's arful (Score:2)
To be honest teaching someone how to "hack" is impossible, it's a thought process, and as such some people just will not be any good at it, but overall it should be considered a selective science. The same as programming, or others.
I don't know if many of you ever looked at a class of college students (I watched those around me in college) Some people just was NEVER going to pass the first C++ course, because they didn't h
Any sufficiently elegant hack... (Score:2)
Re:Any sufficiently elegant hack... (Score:2)
what you wish for [gallery.ca].
Define the distinction. (IMHO it's a "craft") (Score:2)
That depends on how you define the words. The way I define them it's neither.
Art: Creation of compositions that, as a significant intentional goal, have an emotional impact on a huma observer/participant/user/occupier which is significantly greater than that expected from mere communication, representation, or functional usage.
Science: Progressive refinement of understanding of some aspect of the objective universe, accomplished by devising theories that expl
Where Science and Art meet (Score:2)
Art or Science? (Score:2)
and art is a science.
Irrelevent questions of semantics: art or science? (Score:2)
Well, it's a science because it's obsessed with extremely fine details.
On the other hand, you could consider it an art because it expresses, in an indirect way, our contempt for all the remotely relevant things we could be talking about.
Tough one.
How about sarcasm? Art or science?
Yet another... (Score:2)
What possible value can knowing the answer have? Just another lifetime acedemic inventing something arbitrary to talk about instead of doing something useful.
There are a million questions to be explored that might actually provide some value to the world. Art or Science is NOT one of them. If I declared today that Chemestry was and art it wouldn't change anything. Nobody would benefit from knowing it is an art. Why don't you instead anal
Slashdot - News or Useless? (and more) (Score:2)
Which Came First - Chicken or Egg?
Nuclear Chain Reactions - Good or Bad?
Religion - Boon or Bane?
Discussing any of the above would be just as useless and pointless, yet somehow probably would be more interesting.
Always wanted to be an inginear, now i are won (Score:2)
Is engineering science?
As an engineer who hacks, no. However, I remain scientifically literate.
Since the scientifically literate form a small minority, perhaps I could get special deals as an oppressed minority. The handicapped got parking spaces, and what did they do to get that?
Jeez.
The answer is clearly 42.
Philosophy (Score:3, Interesting)
Art or Science -- Why do we have to choose? (Score:2)
One group I 'played' with (The SCA) defined an science as anything that could cause damage, and an art to be any other craft or the like... But really that is also an artificial division.
Until this century, artists, natural philosophers, theologists,
Is "Computer Science" a Science? (Score:2)
*With the exceptioon of Dr. Knuth and a few others who do theroize, postulate, etc.
Both. (Score:2)
science is the study of nature (Score:2)
Aesthetic value and proven methodology (Score:2)
Hacking is art if it has an aesthetic value. Something a person would look at and feel emotions, pleasure, or disgust but as an observatory role (rather than someone seeing all their hard work destroyed and being upset about that fact).
Hacking is a science if it has a proven methology that can be recreated through a certain process.
Whats hacking anyway? (Score:2)
But, lets consider first:
Was Michel Angelo an Artist or a Scientist?
Strange question? So who painted the Chapell? Michel Angelo? No. His team did. You can even doubt if he did one single stroke with the brush himslef. Likely he did, but its even likely he did not.
So, still we consider him an Artist. But what does it take to be one? First of all he has to master all the craft
Re:Opinion only (Score:3, Funny)
When I was coding, someone brought up that the best programmers were people with art backgrounds. After that, whenever a bug was discovered in my code, I would respond with "I code what I feel and I was feeling shitty that day!"