> why the need for a singular and fixed definition? plurality is interesting.
It certainly is. I very much doubt we'll get even close to a fixed
definition. I'm just trying to provoke a useful discussion as I think
I'll be putting together a Phd application next year relating to this
guff.
> not tying ourselves down to a specific version of live coding lets us keep developing what we're doing no?
I personally can't cope with too much "plurality". It's already
impacting my ability to judge whether or not live coding is really
doing what people say its doing.
> Personally I like the ICLC definitions doc as a stock taking of what the community is doing/thinking about rather than trying to say live coding is or isn't
Yeah it probably is one of those really.
I'm just pissed off about the amount of air miles that went in to
making it and am using it as a trolling tool and jumping off point for
finding what will probably only ever be be my own personal definition
of LC.
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/3AaWfHDEs3G1E91wZqkTps
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Sat Dec 26 2015 - 12:25:45 GMT