[engeljohnb]

I would wager that's how it goes for most people that are both good artists and good programmers -- they were artists first, then learned to program. It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer. I suspect that might be why the article opens the way it does.

[spankibalt]

> "It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer."

Such overgeneralizations are not helpful. People gravitate stronger towards certain creative disciplines, or a selection of them; how long it exactly takes to develop-out "reasonable" skills is dependent on a litany of factors, some of which cannot be controlled (e. g. force majeure). Both programming and pixel art requires unwavering commitment and exercise´; there is no way to "wing it" if you are intellectually honest and take your craft seriously.

[engeljohnb]

I think it is helpful for certain purposes, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find exceptions to the general rule.

Art is all about repetition. Even if you've done it successfully many times, you still need to keep doing it until it's second nature.

Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it.

With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer.