Hi all,
Great to see a discussion happening on a mailing list and not on that awful Facebook!
I tend to think David is right that you need to involve a computer in live coding. Sometimes those computers are humans, animals, nature, or analogue machines. (See Hayles' book "My Mother was a Computer").
But on a reflection, I wonder if you can live code lying on your back in the dark (like Beckett) writing code in your minds eye, and not bothering about an interpreter or an audience? A bit like a modernist composer who doesn't give a damn about the listener.
I once wrote a paper on the difficulty of defining live coding. That's why the title became "Herding Cats" - it might be relevant here.
Thor
> On 27 Dec 2015, at 11:38, Tristan Strange <tristan.strange_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26 December 2015 at 16:19, David Barbour <dmbarbour_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think a computer must be involved with processing the code. I'm not
>> inclined to include a Simon Says game as live coding, for example. But it
>> doesn't need to be today's common keyboard-video-mouse setup. And the
>> computer could certainly communicate in ad-hoc ways with other people,
>> robots, and devices.
>
> It's funny, I came here expecting to be told that my definitions were
> too restrictive - not to be telling other people that.
>
> If you're using this definition what distinguishes just using a
> programmable computer program (lets say Excel) from live coding?
>
> --
>
> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> http://lurk.org/r/topic/6YN3PsRb6a6znz2nS93s5Y
>
> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/70exJrb1n4wf0zbnxNmtKK
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Sun Dec 27 2015 - 12:00:13 GMT