Great read. Indeed programming is not a &#x27;gentle art&#x27;, I would say it&#x27;s a &#x27;brutal art&#x27;.<p>There was an article outlining a continuum between art and science, where engineering was somewhere in the middle. Art is the least rigorous of them, while science has the most rigor.<p>Being a science enthusiast, reading on quantum physics, evolutionary biology, etc., I&#x27;ve learned more&#x2F;less how scientists think. It has a lot to do with coming up with not only good explanations, but explanations that are extremely hard to vary. Explanations that risk falling apart if you try to change any aspect of it. This together with a mountain of evidence supporting said explanation, makes for good science.<p>Art on the other hand, is arguably vague by definition. Art that is doesn&#x27;t leave room for interpretation is often bland. Art also has a huge human component, whereas science tries to do away with it.<p>In my opinion, programming can easily be both an art and a science. There&#x27;s no need to constrain it to either one. On one hand, you have the mathematical theory of information, describing a hard-to-vary explanation that is backed up with great math(s). On the other, you have an infinite set of tools from which you can craft whatever your imagination is capable of coming up with. Programming, having its foundations in mathematics, leverages its infinite potential, and with it the possibility of creating both works of art, and scientific facts. It is this universe of possibility that takes only the toughest of minds to venture and explore.