I really see programming as an art first and then a science, just like music.
Art comes from creating something new and stepping outside the box while science is about explaining some existing thing and defining the box to put it in. By studying music history we can see that new styles, harmonies and figures almost always came before the theory that explained them. This is much like new languages, frameworks or patterns coming out and then papers being written about them.
During the middle ages you would hear almost only intervals of an octave or a fifth. Then with classical music came the third and the sixth intervals and the second and seventh intervals only made it a few centuries later. Music as a theory evolved over thousands of years. Only recently did it explode with jazz trying to find every single way to bend that theory.
The brain cannot easily play with a concept it has no single-word name associated to. Right now CS is full of concepts described by mini-phrases and no clear hierarchy for all of these concepts. Music theory by contrast can be entirely described starting from the major chord. Every single concept (as far as I know) has it's proper place in a tree structure with the major chord as its root element.
It's ironic how programmers dread spaghetti code yet ended up with a spaghetti computer science. It might also not help that the industry is plagued with code smells.
In the end, by comparing harmonies to data structures, melodies to code flows and multiple voices to concurrency, I believe its mostly all the same to the brain. A musical score is nothing more than source code for the human brain to read and interpret.
Art comes from creating something new and stepping outside the box while science is about explaining some existing thing and defining the box to put it in. By studying music history we can see that new styles, harmonies and figures almost always came before the theory that explained them. This is much like new languages, frameworks or patterns coming out and then papers being written about them.
During the middle ages you would hear almost only intervals of an octave or a fifth. Then with classical music came the third and the sixth intervals and the second and seventh intervals only made it a few centuries later. Music as a theory evolved over thousands of years. Only recently did it explode with jazz trying to find every single way to bend that theory.
The brain cannot easily play with a concept it has no single-word name associated to. Right now CS is full of concepts described by mini-phrases and no clear hierarchy for all of these concepts. Music theory by contrast can be entirely described starting from the major chord. Every single concept (as far as I know) has it's proper place in a tree structure with the major chord as its root element.
It's ironic how programmers dread spaghetti code yet ended up with a spaghetti computer science. It might also not help that the industry is plagued with code smells.
In the end, by comparing harmonies to data structures, melodies to code flows and multiple voices to concurrency, I believe its mostly all the same to the brain. A musical score is nothing more than source code for the human brain to read and interpret.