You are focusing on the emotive aspect of traditional art and I am focusing on the creative aspect of what is traditionally considered merely technical. I am pushing back on the merely, but I doubt you&#x27;ll agree in the end.<p>If I had to guess, you don&#x27;t like the Poignant Guide to Ruby:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;poignant.guide" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;poignant.guide</a><p>Why is there such enthusiasm for this? If it were only about solving puzzles with clinical detachment, I doubt the guide would have gained its following. Perhaps this book is a work of art meant to convey a fascination with a purely technical subject -- but why is this so successful, when the traditional routes toward the same, namely a degree in CS taught by like minded faculty, fail in some scenarios. In my view, the reductive stance that there is no art in these disciplines, is holding us back (i.e. diminishing our culture, and hindering recruitment).<p>Your point about purpose is well taken, and I get that. I disagree about how easy it is to score the results, and there is some inherent inconsistency when you can simultaneously refer to elegant engineering and objectively measurable best possible solution, i.e. in the latter, elegance is not a criteria, i.e. unless you make it one, it which case the contradiction is self evident. But again, this isn&#x27;t going to persuade you, however, if you want to refine your position, perhaps you omit the reference to elegance :)<p>Thank you, btw, for your comment.