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
Received on Tue Apr 09 2013 - 08:08:38 BST