Yes, the process is very similar. My degree is in audio, my early college work in music. I don't have a computer science degree. I've known a lot of musician-turned-hackers and hacker-turned-musicians.
But I think you're missing a subtle aspect of developing arbitrarily good applications: You probably can't develop a truly great application one block at a time. Sure, you can add all the features of a truly great application one block at a time. But the devil is in the details (just like in music, art, etc.), and sometimes missing one spark of inspiration can make all the difference.
Google is great software. Microsoft Live search is a cheap knockoff with more features and flashier design and less of whatever it is that makes Google "great".
The iPod is great software. Zune is a cheap knockoff with more features and less of whatever it is that makes the iPod "great".
And those two "knockoff" examples were made after the original--they should have been able to copy the "great" aspect and one-up it, by throwing money at it. But somehow they failed. That's the subtle distinction between great software/art/music and mediocrity.
The Beatles made great music. Paul Revere and the Raiders made cheap knockoff songs with less of whatever it is that makes the Beatles "great".
jraines post sums up quite a bit of the process similarities, so I won't go into it.
Music is less objective than software--a bug is a bug, but a blue note might be on purpose and it might be the key to the song. So, it's not precisely the same. Knowing software works or doesn't might be easier than knowing if a melody is worth anything.
But I think you're missing a subtle aspect of developing arbitrarily good applications: You probably can't develop a truly great application one block at a time. Sure, you can add all the features of a truly great application one block at a time. But the devil is in the details (just like in music, art, etc.), and sometimes missing one spark of inspiration can make all the difference.
Google is great software. Microsoft Live search is a cheap knockoff with more features and flashier design and less of whatever it is that makes Google "great".
The iPod is great software. Zune is a cheap knockoff with more features and less of whatever it is that makes the iPod "great".
And those two "knockoff" examples were made after the original--they should have been able to copy the "great" aspect and one-up it, by throwing money at it. But somehow they failed. That's the subtle distinction between great software/art/music and mediocrity.
The Beatles made great music. Paul Revere and the Raiders made cheap knockoff songs with less of whatever it is that makes the Beatles "great".
jraines post sums up quite a bit of the process similarities, so I won't go into it.
Music is less objective than software--a bug is a bug, but a blue note might be on purpose and it might be the key to the song. So, it's not precisely the same. Knowing software works or doesn't might be easier than knowing if a melody is worth anything.