Hacker News Reader

Comment by andersource | Hacker News Reader

I strongly relate. I spent a couple of weekends working on some procedural art [0] and was pretty happy with the end result. When I showed it to some of my co-workers / manager, they were baffled. "Uhh.. OK. Why did you make this?"

[0] https://andersource.dev/2020/10/10/procedural-butterfly.html

View on HN

This is beautiful, I really don't understand people who don't see the value in creating beautiful or interesting things.

I can understand not wanting to do it, it takes a fair bit of time and energy that only comes with a fair bit of passion on the part of the creator, but not understanding why people would just want to make things? That's fairly alien to me =)...

I'd echo seanwilson and ask that you look at flocking, but also more general boid behaviours[0], small herds of these butterflies flying together in a space would look very cool =)...

- [0]: https://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/

Thanks so much! Yeah that idea is really itchy now :)

I guess some people don't see (at least immediately) the artistic value in such things, and then it seems rather pointless.

Sometimes I post things on Show HN that have people seemingly baffled. I like to retort that I made them because I wanted to. It's what I chose to do. I enjoyed doing it. People don't seem to think that's good enough. I think to a large extent coding can be like making art. You don't have to explain what you're doing. You can do it because it satisfies you. Not every "coding product" has to be an actual product. I think engineers in general would do well to learn to appreciate things from an artistic perspective and be comfortable with ambiguity in purpose and meaning, and even if there was a clear purpose, they don't have to know it to appreciate the creation. I know it's tricky, because engineering is by necessity such a logical, needs-clear-definitions type of undertaking, but there's also so much creativity that happens in the space as well. I think the "space as a whole" is lessened when people only what to judge code products in a utilitarian or easily understandable sense. Sometimes you just make things because you can, because you choose to, or because you want to. And that's cool, equally (or more) valid and can be very special and powerful. Practically for some people it might even be a good antidote to the common trope of "culture / industry malaise or disillusionment", while at the same time helping people learn and improve their skills doing something they like. Ultimately, everyone's different, and I get if some people want to factor all the work they do, including learning, from a "how will I bank this?" perspective, and that's cool, but I just think there's room for more views, and they should be appreciated, and certainly not shunned. I think our industry is lessened when people shun people making stuff for their own reasons. I really like doing this, and I think you should try it to, if you're on the fence! :P ;) xx

> I think to a large extent coding can be like making art.

That resonates very strongly with me.

> I enjoyed doing it. People don't seem to think that's good enough.

Yeah, I've found that a lot of times when you want to show something you've made to someone, they'll automatically expect it to be useful and judge it from that perspective. Perhaps that would be different if we could frame it in a way that from the beginning helps align expectations?

> Perhaps that would be different if we could frame it in a way that from the beginning helps align expectations?

It might, but I just want to put it out there sometimes. I don't want to have to explain it, or limit its appreciation to whatever I say it is. I like to leave it open for people to interpret. Sure, when you go to a gallery, sometimes there's a little card that "explains" the art work. But sometimes not. I guess I like the freedom of just creating things and letting people interpret them. I don't want to do that all the time, explain it, but I do it sometimes. So I suppose I'm pushing the task onto the consumers of the work to work out what it means for them, rather than me to explain it. And seeing well are people going to be open to that or not. Whatever their reaction, it's okay either way. I just want the freedom myself to explain it when I want and not when I want, but on a basic level both are equally valid.

I'm not in charge of hiring people but I think your project is awesome.

I do DFIR though and from time to time I help with interviewing potential security analysts. If someone has the skillset needed for the job and on top of that they are so passionate about technology that they work on even tangentially related projects outside of work its largely regarded as an excellent indicator that they'll be a good hire. Obviously that's not the only type of good hire but its one of them.

If I was the person you responded to afterwards I would have come to the conclusion that the interviewers were genuinely stupid people. Even if you don't know anything about OS development you should understand as a person that works with computers or a recruiter that hires for the industry that its a non-trivial project.

Nice! Have you considered adding flocking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids) with lots of them flying around? For a "useless stuff" project, I coded this for bats (all the same model) flying around. It's really fun to play with the flocking parameters to make them behave like bees, fish, birds etc. and it's not much more code than a regular particle system.

Thanks! And that's really cool, added to the TODO list!

That's very cool! I should probably have added to the original comment that in the cases where it's been my role to interview potential candidates for a position, these kind of projects are the first thing I look for. I'd much rather work with people who are fundamentally passionate about what they do.

Thanks, and that's great! Due to experiences like the above I would probably not even think of bringing this up in a regular interview, unless I get the vibe that the interviewer might actually find it interesting for its own sake (which isn't that easy - turns out I have a terrible intuition for which people would appreciate something like that).

It's a little hard to tell because the butterflies are flapping and rotating, but I think your algorithm is sometimes generating dead butterflies.

https://emilydamstra.com/please-enough-dead-butterflies/

These are beautiful! And I second the other comment asking how it works. A good candidate for a blog post if you're looking for a more appreciative audience than your coworkers.

Thank you, I thought of writing one, this might give me the motivation to finally do it!

This is a nice butterfly.

How was it made?

Thanks!

First I'm generating the general geometry of the wings - the most basic shape is a "teardrop" / half of the infinity symbol (see this[0]). Then they are scaled and rotated randomly (within a range to match the other parts of the wings), and further perturbed to make the shape more random. Then I'm drawing lines from the "tip" of the teardrop to the edges and using them to color the segments. The final result is rendered with Three.js[1].

Obviously this is a very succinct explanation, it took me quite some work. You're welcome to look at the code[2], though it's quite messy :)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemniscate_of_Gerono

[1] https://threejs.org/

[2] https://github.com/andersource/andersource.github.io/blob/ma...

That's quite a lot of code! I wasn't expecting to see a linear interpellation function, but that would explain how smooth it looks.

I moved my cursor pointer around the screen and hoped it would follow.

That's a great idea!

This is really cool! I love things like this, they make the world more interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com