The tagline of livecoding.tv is "watch people code products, live".
This seems at odds with the ideals of many of us, which is about
experience rather than productivity.
In a way it's great+interesting to see live coding of music collide
with software engineering, but could this crosstalk make gender bias
even more evident? Not targeting breathing code in particular,
especially as I think they're trying to avoid 100% male lineup, but
this is a handy illustration:
http://breathing-code.de/program.html
As live coding grows in popularity, will it get less flexible, and
less inclusive?
I watched this nice paper by Martin Zeilinger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2mqVcXgz9A
He seems to have got the strong impression that live coding is
difficult, and says the TOPLAP manifesto says live coding must be from
scratch (it doesn't) and on show (well, it does say that).
I guess we've run with an open definition of live coding here, but I
worry that that definition is now being filled in by wider forces.
It's been said before that women may tend towards not wanting to
project their screen, and we've always discussed live coding as
something you could do alone, which makes projecting screens a bit of
a pointless constraint.. Time to actually edit the manifesto wiki
page?
But yeah, long live the temporary organisation!
alex
On 17 March 2015 at 08:36, Dan S <danstowell+toplap_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-03-17 8:33 GMT+00:00 Julian Rohrhuber
> <julian.rohrhuber_at_musikundmedien.net>:
>> maybe toplap has been a verb all along?
>
> :)
>
>> To toplap: tacitly operate programming languages and perform
>
> tacilty? turgidly!
>
>> To toplap around: hang about in smoky bars [fig. "don't toplap around!"]
>> To toplap up: embark upon an activity bound to fail
>>
>> #toplap
>>
>>
>>> On 17.03.2015, at 01:30, Amy Alexander <amy_at_plagiarist.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Could also say, "live coding performance." Which brings to mind the fact
>>> that the term "perform" itself is fraught with confusing multiple
>>> definitions. So maybe it's not so bad that "live coding" has more than one
>>> definition/context.
>>
>> It always had, as far as I can remember. The proliferation of terminology is maybe more a problem of recognition.
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Nick Collins <clicksonnil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can live code the definition of live coding as needed,
>>>>
>>>> but I did find myself pondering further terms for a musician-programmer
>>>> (specifically from the music angle rather than fine art, visuals):
>>>> coda
>>>> programme-err
>>>> DACker
>>>> developmenter
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>> N
>>>>
>>>> PS did you know that an anagram of software engineer is "foreseeing new
>>>> art"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16 Mar 2015, at 21:26, alex <alex_at_slab.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess "live coded music" focusses on the outcome rather than the
>>>>> activity (depending on whether you think music is a product or an
>>>>> activity). "live music coding" is a bit better in principle but
>>>>> doesn't roll off the tongue..
>>>>>
>>>>> Originally we started off using "live programming" and "live coding"
>>>>> interchangeably but I think the latter won out because it's easier to
>>>>> say.. This seems to be the case in this new wave, to start with it was
>>>>> called 'live programming' but over time has settled back on 'live
>>>>> coding'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'll carry on calling it "live coding" because I'm interested
>>>>> in non-musical live coding as well, and whether or not we're talking
>>>>> about music is generally clear from the context.
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe we should carry on saying 'live coding', but refer to TOPLAP
>>>>> more, as a safe space for live coders making video and music a little
>>>>> outside the world of software engineering.
>>>>>
>>>>> It'll be interesting to see what happens to the wikipedia page..
>>>>>
>>>>> alex
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
>>>>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/5h1yg929uOAr8wgCR7p4Vj
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/4pSin0aMefBWcTTCuyhlaK
>>>>
>>>> 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/7ptEnRVi6goJjzGX9A7G4Y
>>>
>>> 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/3ETAObbo7HFyMsf6pl1Qas
>>
>> 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/4Nax8AeAt32A3vkwoEX2Wk
>
> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
--
http://yaxu.org/
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/1zUJksq5yB0vwGT13lIZHd
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Fri Mar 27 2015 - 13:00:37 GMT