On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Tristan Strange <tristan.strange_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 24 December 2015 at 19:25, David Barbour <dmbarbour_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Live coding is using a powerful language as an HCI.
>
> Nice but people live code with little languages all the time don't they?
>
It's a spectrum. The more you restrict the language, the less 'coding' you
can do. Writing an HTML document is closer to word processing than live
coding, for example. I'm fond of leveraging embedded DSLs within a more
general language.
>
> Could I argue argue that a a collection of widgets could make up an
> extremely powerful language?
>
Sure. Languages can certainly be graphical in nature. However, you would
need some way to compose these widgets into larger ideas or apps. Much like
a "collection of words" isn't a language unless you also have rules to
combine them into sentences.
> Also are you adamant its an HCI concept? I think we're looking at the
> interface between system and person these days - not just computer and
person
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.
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/5YwCr0gjmEETCUoxgJczHA
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Sat Dec 26 2015 - 16:19:16 GMT