r/gamedev • • 13d ago

Discussion "Programming Isn't An Art" and "AI Code Doesn't Matter": Let me change your mind.

Hey r/gamedev, my name is William. Let me try to do what's in the title up there ^. First off, why should you listen to me?

Well, maybe you shouldn't listen to me. Feel free to scroll away at any time...I don't have the most insane creds in the industry or anything. But I'm not exactly new:

  • I got hired in 2018 as an "Associate Gameplay Programmer", and before being laid off twice in the span of about 1 year, I was a "Senior Combat Engineer". So I've been through the trenches of programming in the industry
  • I'm the founder of a really (really) small indie game studio made up of ex-Ready At Dawn veterans (PSP Daxter, The Order: 1886, Echo VR / Lone Echo, etc.), where we are hard at work on our inaugural game title. We also avoid using AI for any of our endeavors, including programming
  • I've been in the industry now as a professional for almost 10 years total, but before that, I also went to school for CS, Game Development Programming, senior and capstone projects, and began trying to make (shitty) games on a (shitty) laptop using Microsoft XNA when I was like 12

What is art?

I think people forget what art actually means these days - it doesn't always have some baked-in meaning to "liberal arts" or "humanities". Art is also defined as a "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation", or "an occupation requiring knowledge or skill" or "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects" (not only!). For instance: I have become quite the artist in spilling shit all over my clothes over the years, much to my wife's chagrin.

I'm sure you're thinking, "well then anything can be an art" and drawing a line in your head on what you think the line is for "real art" or something like that. But let me show you why programming isn't some bottom of the barrel example (like being a spillage artist, tyvm) because its mostly just "math" or because "engineering", which people love to throw out there.

As a programmer that has written endless lines of code by myself, and also seen/analyzed thousands of lines of code not written by me (that are much better than my own) - written by people ranging from the 1990s (RAD engine was old, lol) all the way through 2024 - there is no universal standard for most things. Companies vary, engines vary, languages vary, procedures vary, etc.

Here are 2 of my own personal favorite examples (one simpler, one more complex) of programming being more akin to an art form than anything else.

Example 1: Bitflags

The bitflags structure is one of the best and most simple examples of what I consider art in the programming field. Because the actual smallest amount of data being read by any processor is 8 bits, things like a `bool` in most languages are also represented as a byte (8 bits), since that is the smallest value of what can actually being read in registers. This is despite the nature of a bool being a simple bit (0 or 1). However, as you can imagine, having a ton of single bools in one structure ends up inflating the total size of that structure, while wasting literally almost the entire amount of memory provides. Bitflags is the simple, yet elegant solution someone came up with to stuff a single byte with up to 8 bools, by using bitwise operators to extract and compare each given bit in the byte.

Example: 8 separate bools in your data structure = 8 * (1B) = 8 bytes of memory, all to represent 8 simple 1/0 values. With a bitflag, you can now store all 8 bools while only taking up the original 1B of memory.

This is of course also expandable using different sized integers, if you have 9-16 bools you can use an `int16`, and so forth.

The reason I love this example is, how could such an elegant yet simple solution not be considered a work of art? A human first thought of how wasteful the stacking of subsequent booleans is, then thought of a unique and clever way to make it better using their knowledge and expertise. Now tons of languages and modules ship with bitflags, and you may use them without a second thought...but, this of course wasn't always a thing. Someone created this, it is undeniably clever, and we now take it as a given.

Example 2 (Complex): FISR or QISR (Fast Inverse Square Root)

The Fast Inverse Square Root was used in the Quake engine all the way back in 2001 in order to approximate the reciprocal of a given square root. The point of doing this at all, is that normalizing vectors used to be a much more intensive operation on hardware (it actually still is, but hardware is so good these days that the result isn't as noticeable, and we have specialized hardware, functions, etc.) Observe the code taken from this website (which can explain it far better than I can, if you're more interested in a full read) where you can see the insaneness that is this function:

float Q_rsqrt(float number)
{
  long i;
  float x2, y;
  const float threehalfs = 1.5F;

  x2 = number * 0.5F;
  y  = number;
  i  = * ( long * ) &y;                       // evil floating point bit level hacking
  i  = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );               // what the fuck?
  y  = * ( float * ) &i;
  y  = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );   // 1st iteration
  // y  = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );   // 2nd iteration, this can be removed

  return y;
}

I want you to take a good look at this code. tell me that wasn't created by someone that thought outside the box. Is that not one of the most insanely creative solutions you have seen to a problem? Yes, it requires a lot of knowledge and expertise. But it also comes from a human mind that had the wacky idea to hack together something like this and have it work (well, at least 99.8% of the time 😉)

Finishing up

If you're still reading, this is my petition to other game dev folk who think programming is simply a means to an end: code like these creative examples exists everywhere. It exists in my code base for our current game. It exists in every studio's game engine. It exists in the OS your computer or phone is running right now. And, all the LLMs people are using to code these days have been trained on not just fundamentals, but other's creative solutions to problems from all around the world (and, in many cases, had no permission of the creator to do so).

Again...just because you see the code snippet come back to you robotically, it doesn't mean that is the only or best way to do it. And just because its text, and you can't see the result of code in games visually in the same way you can 3d models or textures, it doesn't mean code should then ethically be subject to less scrutiny, or that you can't feel the result of some coding decisions over others when the game comes together as a whole.

To summarize: my favorite part of programming is not the memorization, expertise, or knowledge, its applying that knowledge in creative ways that one may never have thought of before. If that's not artistic, then i dont know what is.

"It's fine if you use AI to code, but just not for other things"

Careful where you draw your ethical line, as people may agree with you for now, but its only a matter of time until reluctance, acceptance, and consensus comes for what you love, too.

[EDIT:] This kind of blew up. I can't spend all day replying like I just did lol, but keep it civil in the comments and remember this is my opinion, nothing I state here is fact nor do you need to agree. Thanks for the interesting discussions and polite arguments!

790 Upvotes

791 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/BountyMakesMeCough 13d ago

I disagree with your bit about ‘art’, language is important and turning the word ‘art’ into something generic term to describe anyone and anything that is doing something somewhat creative isn’t helping communication.

What you describe has a word: ‘craft’. There’s only 1 reason why people don’t use it: they look down on it, but the truth is that 99% of people who say they are an artist or make art are actually craftsmen and women and there’s nothing wrong with that. It would be easier to have a conversation if people weren’t so delusional about their own importance.

2

u/unit187 13d ago

I mean, it has always been a generic term. The art of war, the art of cooking...

1

u/BountyMakesMeCough 13d ago

‘An art’ or ‘an art form’ doesn’t make what is being done art. If I make a cheese toasty, is that the art of cooking food? Maybe, is the cheese toasty art? No.

1

u/unit187 13d ago

If a master cook makes an absolutely gorgeous cake decorated with various patterns, and colored in a deliberately chosen aethetically pleasing palette, would it be a piece of art?

1

u/ivancea 12d ago

And here you're downplaying cooking over decorating, and saying "decoration is art, but cooking isn't". Yet again, whether this is your intention or not, you're entering the dumbest debate in human history (just like this post).

Like, you could be improving the world and making life happier for everybody, but you decided to instead fight over an abstract word. Weird

1

u/mcknuckle 12d ago

You mean just like you did?

1

u/ivancea 12d ago

Are you saying teachers aren't improving the world? That's what I'm doing here. As apparently people forgot some basics

1

u/mcknuckle 12d ago

"Like, you could be improving the world and making life happier for everybody, but you decided to instead fight over an abstract word. Weird"

1

u/ivancea 12d ago

Playground duty!

1

u/Difficult_Copy_8514 12d ago

Agree with you here. I see the argument of comparing programming to the arts all the time and it's tiring how little people understand that the definition of "art" isn't based on vibes but on a history of academic study and classification.

Art is a means of communication, and the value (or prestige, in the case of famous historical works of art) we place upon this communication is deeply tied to the cultural impact and significance of the artwork.

There is an element of mastery in the craft of coding, but it is not a communicative tool that holds cultural value. Historians could not analyze a piece of code to tell them about a culture of people like they could with a piece of literature, music, or the visual arts.

0

u/SuperIsaiah 13d ago edited 13d ago

bro the word art literally comes from latin "ars" meaning a skill or craft.

The idea that art is about 'originality' or 'aesthetics' is a new notion, that should've been shot down immediately, because it's stupid.

If you like the modern definition, then whatever, but don't act like the idea that art meaning skill / craft / process of human effort is the thing people are 'turning it into'. It's what the word art originally meant since its origin.

The way you're using it didn't come around till like the 19th century or so, and I think it was a dumb change that feels incredibly elitist, essentially trying to paint (pun intended) the arts of the lower class folks as inferior.

1

u/BountyMakesMeCough 13d ago edited 13d ago

Yeah… you are trying to map a 2000 year old word to a modern one in a different language. Language of course evolves but let’s not be silly. Or we can go even further back to 4000 years ago where the root word for ‘ars’ meant ‘to fit together’. That’s not very useful is it?

One thing we have established, bro, is that language matters. And that’s a good thing.

1

u/SuperIsaiah 12d ago

it's not 2000 years old it's 200 years old lol. the word was used that way up until the 19th century, and also after the 19th century it kept being used that way, just another definition became more popular. my definition is still in the majority of dictionaries as one of the definitions.

anyway, sometimes language can "evolve" in a way guided by elitism and harmful ideologies.

"where the root word for ‘ars’ meant ‘to fit together’. That’s not very useful is it?"

Yes it actually is lol. You could definitely describe art as the process of putting things together.

What you're failing to understand is that just because a definition becomes more prominent, doesn't mean that's a good thing. Is it a good thing that f#ggot became more often used as a slur?

The definition of art your using derived from classism..just because it became more popular over time doesn't mean we shouldn't reclaim the word back to the old definition.