On 6 February 2013 09:45, Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to have a conversation about the first sentence, before I try
> any editing. For reference;
OK I think we should keep the talk page on the article itself in mind
though. Important to engage with those outside of the community,
especially now "live coding" is used in computer science lectures and
technical conferences, and the synonymous "live programming" is
co-opted by our friends in the software engineering/PLT communities.
[snip]
> The current focus of that sentence might make sense if we'd also like
> to talk about the kind of livecoding we may perform if there is some
> running system that needs a new feature but can't be brought off-line,
> but so far we are not.
Well there's some of that in music performance, and as I think people
do talk about live coding in those circumstances, so maybe it should
be there? Maybe code dojos should be mentioned? Or should we focus
this page on live performance arts and make way for another more
general page?
> I like the focus on time; that's a important topic in showing the
> workings of algorithms. I'm going to push for a coherent paragraph on
> that on ChucK; not having ChucK there is a bit silly.
Please do - it's absence is only down to no-one having written it in
yet! Also JITLib etc should be written in.
> It strikes me that the way Wikipedia works pushes this article in a
> certain direction. Wikipedia (rightfully) demands sources but it's far
> easier to find sources on the research aspects to it all than on the
> recreational and expressive side. I can probably find ten papers on
> where various aspects of livecoding fit into the history of computer
> science before lunch but I can't cite "20 drunk dancers" as a source
> on how much fun it all is. I have a hunch that we'd run into trouble
> outfitting dancers with equipment measuring their dopamine and
> endorphins levels as a function of the exposed usage of
> lambda-calculus in sound-generation.
I think it's reasonable requirement to not have "original research" in
an encyclopedia page. I think sources can be anything e.g. articles,
books, blogs, etc.. What can be dodgy at times is that you have to
have "reputable" sources to establish notability of a topic, but as I
understand it, once notability has been established for an article,
the same rules don't apply to the statements within an article.
alex
Received on Wed Feb 06 2013 - 11:46:48 GMT