Ron, I’m sorry that you didn’t get much out of my review. I never thought the book was about output or wrote that it was. I make the distinction between code and output in the sentence that you quote, and there’s a long discussion of obfuscated code in the second half of the review that doesn’t even mention output. I also certainly didn’t put Dr. Oliphant’s sentence forward as an example of poor writing style – it isn’t. I included it because it was an offhand reference to beauty (one of several) in a book that considers code in much more depth and detail.

I’m not as keen on the means/ends distinction as you, as least as applying in all cases, but I can get behind this idea of yours for code which is “purposeful”: “Since code is means, I’d suggest its beauty has a lot to do with achieving the ends.” A building has a purpose, too, though: It’s supposed to house people, provide them with fresh air and light, allow them to move from place to place, and so on. So I don’t think comparing buildings and code is improper. Both of them are “means” in plenty of ways. I think people discuss the “architecture” of software projects because making this comparison is useful. And yet we have a much more developed idea of what it means for a building to be beautiful. If the building works and is elegant, that’s great, and that contributes to the building’s beauty. But that’s not all we can say about beauty in this area.

I’m sure that, with work, we can develop our ideas of beautiful code as well.

The book is about code, not output. The back half of the review confuses the means (code) from the ends (output). Comparing code (means) to a painting (output) or a finished building (output) is apples-to-oranges. Furthermore, making your point using Mr. Oliphant’s bad writing style ignores 1) that he is not a writer, and 2) his message about avoiding needless distractions.

“When beauty is mentioned, it seems obligatory and stands for whatever the author of a particular chapter values.”

I wasn’t aware there was one true definition of beauty. Since code is means, I’d suggest its beauty has a lot to do with achieving the ends. Even when the ends are obfuscation of the source code itself.

“A final disappointment: There are no articles on the creative, artistic use of code, on programming projects that are meant to create beautiful output”

Again, the book isn’t about output, it’s about code, about the means. Hence the title. You might as well blast Strunk & White for having a weak plot in Elements Of Style — it misses the point. The ends of writing may have plot & characters, but a book on the means of writing does not.

It’s a decent enough book, but you mis-characterize it so badly in the last half or so of your review, it makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.