> This is probably the first time in history that a graphic artist has painted a functionally workable computer program by accident
While impressive organically, it sounds easy when targeted; we could design a programming language where an image of Mona Lisa prints "hello world" - and claim a similar feat.
Perhaps the reverse is more interesting - programmers accidentally wrote a language that could treat real world abstract art as valid input.
I.e. that “programmers accidentally wrote a language that could treat real world abstract art as valid input” - and to me it’s more interesting than what grand-grandparent is describing.
I think in this case, there is a coincidence on both sides? Like, the language or the painting could have been different such that the painting would run, but what it would do wouldn't be a recognizable task.
While impressive organically, it sounds easy when targeted; we could design a programming language where an image of Mona Lisa prints "hello world" - and claim a similar feat.
Perhaps the reverse is more interesting - programmers accidentally wrote a language that could treat real world abstract art as valid input.