On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew Brown <algorithmicmusic_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm sure it is true, as Georg states, that live programming environments
> and practices may have general utility - as Sorensen advocates. There seems
> to (should) be an assumption that 'live coding' is performative and that
> 'coding' is live (i.e., an activity), so a coding or programming
> distinction seems unnecessary as does, I hope, the need to add
> 'performance' to the end of 'live coding' in order to be understood.
>
With 'live programming', the whole point is the easy, low-overhead retries
with rapid feedback. It's a learning and exploratory experience. It's the
difference between aiming a hose vs. aiming a bow - no need to restart,
reload, re-aim. The end goal is a program that is 'on target'. Only the
final program matters; getting there is largely a question of efficiency.
With 'live coding' the show must go on. There are no take-backs in front of
an audience. The intermediate outputs matter. The end-state of the code
does not. A live coder is strumming and manipulating that code like an
instrument, but generally not developing an independently usable program.
Some live coders even delete their code at the end, to make it extra super
clear that they aren't programming.
Different purposes, different priorities, different concerns, different
communities. I feel there is a need to distinguish them.
Received on Wed Aug 14 2013 - 00:57:15 BST