Code, Software and Serious Games

The Mateaus & Montfort article brought up different issues about analyzing code and actually interacting with it that I have felt confused about. In the essay they write that, "code has been made legible to people." Now, I haven't had much experience with code, but when I do see it I have found it quite illegible, as I am sure that most individuals do. So when they say "people," I ask myself, 'what kind of people?' Are only those familiar with the language of code invited to read code? If not, how can others benefit from code?

They then refer to 'weird' coding, something that I had never even heard about, and they explain it as languages made to make any program difficult. After reading this, a person who is not so familiar with readig code may become even more confused. Why would they create a code just to confuse people and make their job of reading code even more difficult? However, when they actually give examples of some weird coding, such as the language Shakespeare, I became more involved with its analysis than I have become for 'traditional' i.e. not 'weird' coding. The comedic aspect, the puns, and the difficult challenge of reading weird language suddenly manifested itself as an art form. To be honest, I was a bit put off when Mateaus and Montfront reffered to code as possibly being poetry, of being elegant. When they quote, and I requote Knuth as saying, "plodding and excrutiating to read, because it just didn't posses any wit whatsoever. It got the job done, but it's use of the computer was very dissapointing," I was shocked. Why is the elegance and poetic feature of code more important than getting the job done. Is not codes main function to get the computer to get the job done? Clearly, for many it is important that it be both aesthetically pleasing and get the job done. But then we have the weird languages of coding. These languages may be entertaining to read, and aesthetically pleasing, but they "are not designed for any real-world application or normal educational use; rather, they are intended to test the boundaries of programming language design." So, if the weird languages fulfill the aesthitic requirment, but do not fulfill any practical use, where do they stand? What becomes more important to the reader of the code? The aesthetic quality or its ability to fulfill a real world comandment?

It became apparent that to Mateas and Montfront the aesthetic quality is quite important for they say that in order to appreciate the code we must be able to see it. The essay "The Aesthetics of Generative Code," by Cox, McLean, and Ward, seems to slightly contradict this idea. They argue that we must be able to "sense" the code in order to really appreciate. Although they fnd the aesthetic quality of the code important, they establish from the beginning paragraph that, "the aesthetic value of code lies in its execution, not simply its written form." They also find our interaction with code important, but they seem to imply here that the code must be executable, otherwise it may not be wholy appreciated. The codes function is also important. They say, "to separate the code and the resultant actions would simply limit the aesthetic experience, and ultimately limit the study of these forms." This make much more sense. Although being able to see the code is crucial, being able to sense the code in all of its forms and performities enables us to become more absorbed into the code and its qualities. We may learn to read it, and enjoy that challenge without neglecting an aspect.