> On 28.12.2015, at 16:58, Tristan Strange <tristan.strange_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28 December 2015 at 01:32, <andrew_at_moso.com.au> wrote:
>> However, as a formal engineering term, live-coding is simply WTF. Trying to categorise what is and is not a live-coding system is too arbitrary to be meaningful**. If you are looking at this (wtf is live-coding) from a formal systems perspective then you are asking the wrong questions.
>
> If I can't have an engineering term, (got to admit I'd like one) and
> am deciding I might like a "formal systems perspective" what questions
> should I be asking? If you know what they are don't keep them to
> yourself.
In general, we have been intentionally working toward keeping the term open (it is often useful to keep central concepts open, and widely practiced). The nice christmas conversation is witness to this.
But if you really need a definition, and are aware that it doesn’t necessarily helps in all situations, it is quite easy to give: live coding happens when writing a program is an integral part of running it. Instead, you can also say, live coding happens when refactoring a program is an integral part of running it. Usually, but not necessarily, this happens in some sort of public.
Also we shouldn’t throw out the baby of formal systems with the bath water of its most conventional theory. So perhaps, as a first attempt, in "more formal" terms, live coding can be defined as a method (and practice) of simultaneous transformations of a formal system and one of its models, where each of the two are typically underdetermined by the problem domain they address.
I hope that helps a little and is agreeable within reason?
Best,
Julian
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/7lr4pmbd8tYZ8GOkoPjsTW
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Mon Dec 28 2015 - 20:32:12 GMT