Even without introducing lived experience (whatever this may actually imply), any discovery must involve some "rewriting of the past", as foundational assumptions must be reinterpreted in new light. The resulting incommensurable situation is what I usually call "algorithmic complementarity" now. I think reducing the problem to offline debugging is just an intuitive attempt to keep the situation simple. Of course all the interesting stuff happens within the incommensurabilities of manifold time, may it be proxied, knitted or recursed.
On 09.04.2013, at 10:31, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
> OK in fairness to Sean, there is this on pg. 7:
>
> "Still, real-time live programming is useful when changing the past is
> not nonsensical; e.g. programming a live performance [22] or physical
> robot [9]."
>
> Interesting what statements the focus on offline debugging turn up! I
> think we do need to inject time back into this discussion, as
> something relevant to lived experience, and not manipulable post-hoc
> as standard.
>
> alex
>
>
> On 9 April 2013 09:08, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
>> On 7 April 2013 23:02, Julian Rohrhuber
>> <julian.rohrhuber_at_musikundmedien.net> wrote:
>>> the lack of reference to live coding and its history is a little stunning, but this is how you can witness parallelism in history of discourse.
>>> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4714
>>
>> Here's another:
>> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4715
>>
>> The lack of reference to live coding does seem unhealthy, particularly
>> as Sean and I had an extensive email conversation relating live
>> programming and live coding a couple of months back, which seems to
>> have shaped his context implicitly but not explicitly. If there is
>> parallelism here, it's wilful.
>>
>> That said, Sean is talking about a very specific use of programming
>> languages. For Sean, any live interactivity with the outside world
>> gets in the way, and makes a programming language less usable
>> (according to some implicit definition of usable). In other words,
>> Sean argues that programming is only live if it does not involve any
>> live I/O!
>>
>> This makes a bit more sense in the context of Chris Nash et al's
>> terms; Sean's only interested in "live" feedback in the manipulation
>> loop between programmer and code. Making this distinction clear by
>> example and reference, i.e. helping defining what he means by
>> "usable", would have avoided confusion and annoyance, but hey.
>>
>> Beyond this, I don't think there is real software
>> engineering/performance technology parallelism. Many of us have boats
>> in both ponds, the LIVE workshop at ICSE have made efforts to point to
>> the various histories at play, etc. It might be helpful for someone to
>> write a good live coding review paper to the software engineering
>> community though, I'd be happy to contribute to such a thing...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> alex
>>
>> --
>> http://yaxu.org
>
>
>
> --
> http://yaxu.org/
>
Received on Sun Apr 14 2013 - 19:56:04 BST