[engeljohnb]

> As you probably can deduce by now, I see both examples as having the potential of being art

I suppose it was a mistake to get distracted by trying to find out what exactly you're trying to say -- it's now completely clear that it has nothing to do with whether art or programming takes longer to gain proficiency.

>labored [...] tedious

Saying my points are long-winded or redundant also doesn't support your point. You're doing a lot of philosophizing about what art is or whether my points are "useless," but you still haven't reasoned about why it's not true that art takes longer to learn than programming. Which is rich since you've spent more words on this matter than me.

>Such comparisons, as relatable as they might sound to someone who is familiar with these titles, are often useless as well (I am aware of these games and their game mechanics, but have never played them nor care to do so).

So, you haven't played the games, therefore you have no insight into the analogy, so you're not really in a position to say whether the comparison is useless.

You've also used the word "useless" a handful of times here, all without any follow-up as to why exactly. What "use" are you referring to here?

In the context of a programmer wanting to know how learning to draw compares to learning to program (something I've only been asked once, but even once is enough to prove it's useful), to say "expect drawing proficiency to take longer, because it requires more repetition" is useful.

Once again, this isn't deduction or hypothesis. It's my own experience with both crafts.

[spankibalt]

> "[...] it's now completely clear that it has nothing to do with whether art or programming takes longer to gain proficiency."

I just replied directly to your comment, as I usually do in discussions. Besides, your point of contention, i. e. what takes longer to gain proficiency in (whatever you define as art or the act of programming), has already been adressed multiple times.

> "So, you haven't played the games, therefore you have no insight into the analogy, so you're not really in a position to say whether the comparison is useless."

You misunderstood. The comment was not about me but about the general value of such comparisons. True, I haven't played the games, but I have seen them being played countless times, have some material where they come up in (reference books, art books, magazines, documentation, etc.), and can therefore make sense of your analogy. In the end it's useless mostly for entirely different reasons, though; reasons I have already explained as well.

> "You've also used the word 'useless' a handful of times here, all without any follow-up as to why exactly. What 'use' are you referring to here?"

These discussions are often cumbersome as one has to find common, agreed-upon language in the first place. And more often than not such online discussions don't lead to deeper insights (e. g. performativity measurements who "spent more words" is not something of relevance to me). That has at least been my experience. Don't take it personal.

> "In the context of a programmer wanting to know how learning to draw compares to learnong to program (something I've only been asked once, but even once is enough to prove it's useful), to say "expect drawing proficiency to take longer, because it requires more repition" is useful."

That's, as you've stated, an anecdotal hypothesis based on your life's experience. To me, programming, writing, making music, painting pictures, etc. require creativity, rigorous exercise, repetition, and so on. What discipline was, is, or will be the easier or easiest way for you to get to whatever your goal is I cannot know for this depends on way too many factors, many of them, to top it off, outside of any parasocial (online) prism.

[engeljohnb]

> 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.

> And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems, rationally or intuitively; in both it takes practice to get reproducible results, in both you need to keep doing it until it becomes "second nature". This refers to the process itself, the process to hone one's craft.

These are all the words you've said so far that address whether art takes longer to learn than programming. Your points boil down to 1) People have different strengths and weaknesses 2) Both require practice

But neither of these contradicts the statement "art generally takes longer to learn than programming."

> In the end it's useless mostly for entirely different reasons, though; reasons I have already explained as well.

Here are all the words you've spent explaining why the observation is useless:

Oh... actually nothing. This whole discussion started when you said

> Such overgeneralizations are not helpful

But they've already been helpful to me before, and no fewer than one other person. Even if it's not much, "useless" is untrue. I said "this is what I've found to be true, and observed in others like me," and you said "this is not a useful observation." You never said why, you just jumped straight to "I already adressed that."