Ah, 'indeterministic' has a specific meaning in computer science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_in_concurrent_computation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbounded_nondeterminism
What you're describing, "not fixed to a specific set of functions", I'm not
sure there is a single word for that. There are different flavors of "not
fixed" (can we add functions? remove or disable functions? alter
definitions of existing functions? rearrange/recompose functions or
software components? tweak parameters?). Different words include
'extensible', 'editable', 'configurable'....
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Konstantinos Vasilakos <
konstantinos.vasilakos_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >Yes I'm not into indeterminism either, there's generally something
> more interesting to do than draw on pseudo-random numbers.
>
>
> I think there is a misconception here, by indeterministic I meant using an
> environment which is not fixed or predesigned by someone to do a specific
> set of functions, i.e a digital instrument consisted by the implementation
> of a sound synthesis technique (or a combination).
>
> But using a programming language where you can do more than a specific
> piece, and implement a plethora of functions, in a indeterministic way.
>
> Maybe this touches upon the issue of the interface.
>
> Best
> K.
>
>
>
> 2013/8/10 alex <alex_at_lurk.org>
>
>> Yes I'm not into indeterminism either, there's generally something
>> more interesting to do than draw on pseudo-random numbers.
>>
>> I think of live coding as improvisation. I make sure things are live
>> by writing some new functions in advance of a live coding performance,
>> to create new space to explore. Otherwise it can just feel like going
>> through pre-practised 'licks'.
>>
>> From the original post:
>> > i myself use SC. i've spent a lot of time, though never near enough,
>> poking around
>> > the docs and listserv and built a collection of tools that i can invoke
>> with very
>> > abbreviated code. over time i've collected a little library of such
>> tools and
>> > accompanying code snippets, and when i sit down to make noise, i'm
>> mostly sitting
>> > in front of a page full of these snippets, "just" deciding which of
>> them to execute
>> > when, and the only code i write in situ, if any, is in the form of
>> small routines, made
>> > with copy and paste, that endlessly loop over a couple of these code
>> snippets.
>> > is that live coding?
>>
>> I wouldn't call it live coding. If you're not changing the code, by
>> combining and abstracting things, then it's not programming.
>>
>> alex
>>
>> On 10 August 2013 18:37, David Barbour <dmbarbour_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I hate the idea of requiring an "indeterminstic medium" for live
>> coding. I
>> > favor deterministic programming languages.
>> >
>> > I do like the idea of hacking the instrument, or interpreting some
>> actions
>> > outside of code. Leap seems like it might make a neat programmable
>> > instrument.
>> >
>> > On Aug 10, 2013 9:00 AM, "Konstantinos Vasilakos"
>> > <konstantinos.vasilakos_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >i use mostly found sounds -- some i'm not live coding? :)
>> >>
>> >> I think the question is: what are you using to interact with these
>> sounds.
>> >> If you are manipulating them through a pre-designed digital
>> >> instrument/performing environment then you probably you wouldn't call
>> it a
>> >> live coding process.
>> >> Live coding would be the act of interacting with the sounds through an
>> >> indeterministic medium to process those.
>> >>
>> >> Personally I love doing both, starting with the instrument and hack the
>> >> source code at some point. Then what it is ?
>> >> I don't know, maybe a hybrid ?
>> >>
>> >> Whatever works !
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >> K.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2013/8/10 <alln4tural-list_at_gmx.net>
>> >>>
>> >>> At 08:07 10.08.2013 -0700, David Barbour wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> If it's your own sound, and if you didn't come up with it in
>> advance...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> i use mostly found sounds -- some i'm not live coding? :)
>> >>>
>> >>> i could imagine making the argument, and not entirely rhetorical,
>> that a
>> >>> turntablist who's mixing short passages from, say, 20 different LPs
>> on the
>> >>> spot is doing a kind of live coding; at least, i could easily
>> envision (less
>> >>> easily actually make) using my code snippets to control an array of
>> twenty
>> >>> turntables to the same general effect. I think that would
>> uncontroversially
>> >>> count as live coding; if you agree, but consider the turntablist not
>> to be
>> >>> live coding .. then live coding is equal to "computer aided
>> improvisation"?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best.
>> >>
>> >> K.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://yaxu.org/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best.
>
> K.
>
Received on Sun Aug 11 2013 - 17:46:03 BST