This essay argues that hacking and painting are fundamentally similar activities because both are forms of making, not science or engineering. The author contends that hackers are better understood as creators and makers who learn by doing and sketching with code, rather than as scientists following formal methodologies. Universities and companies often misunderstand this creative nature of programming, forcing hackers into scientific or engineering roles that constrain their ability to design beautiful software.

• •Hacking and painting are both making activities, not science or engineering, and hackers should identify more with makers like painters and writers than with scientists
• •The term 'computer science' is misleading because hacking is fundamentally about creating things, not conducting research, and treating it as science forces hackers to write papers instead of beautiful software
• •The best way to learn programming is by doing it and studying good examples of code, similar to how painters learn by painting and studying masterworks, not through formal academic instruction
• •Good software should be created through iterative refinement and sketching, requiring flexible, dynamic programming languages that allow changes rather than rigid static typing and upfront specifications
• •Empathy for users is the most important difference between good and great hackers, as software must be designed from the user's perspective to be truly excellent

Harvard, Northeastern, DARPA, Yugoslavia, Ricky Ricardo, Lucy, Samuel Johnson, Yahoo, Viaweb, Microsoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Benjamin Franklin, Addison, Steele, Raymond Chandler, Unix, John Lions, Michael Jordan, Leonardo da Vinci, Ginevra de Benci, National Gallery, Verrocchio, Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel, Federico da Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino, Piero della Francesca, Shakespeare, Albrecht Durer, Jane Austen, Trevor Blackwell, Robert Morris, Dan Giffin, Lisa Randall, Henry Leitner, Larry Finkelstein