![]() It is a commercial good, operating in a collaboratively authored, technocultural economy whose programmers are - even for the same code - celebrated and derided, fungible and irreplaceable, congratulated and scape-goated, rewarded and re-assigned by those who exchange it, who haggle with it and hack it, in the marketplace of processes. These fragments communicate differently in communities of hackers, lawyers, managers, politicians, and pundits. Those segments become matter for debate, take on a life of their own, escape the cage of the CPU and find their way out the front gate and over fences into backyard barbecue conversations over who's got the best language, Python or Java, or who's got the most elegant code. Its materiality is immaterial when discussing the ways in which segments of code circulate through culture. It makes a difference how the programmer imagined the ones who would read her code. It makes a difference who is reading it and what they know about programming. It makes a difference on which platform it is executed. It makes a difference how the code is written. It matters to the many people who program it, and to those who allow themselves to be programmed by it. Can Critical Code Studies overcome the divide between technology workers and technocultural theorists?Ĭode matters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |