On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:11 AM, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
> it's easy to avoid confusion by seeing "live programming" as shorthand for
> "live
> programming languages", as in (live) (programming languages) rather
> than (live programming) (languages).
>
> Therefore, live programming is about systems, and live coding is about
> using those systems to make art, and/or in social situations. I.e.
> live coders are a subset of live programmers.
>
> In which case, live coders we're very likely to be interested in live
> programming languages and therefore conflate them, but a live
> programmer might not necessarily be interested in live coding, e.g. if
> they don't like art or social situations.
>
What you write here resonates with my own view.
Live programming is at least as much a function of IDE, API, and program
architecture as the programming language itself. I'm very interested in
developing PLs where robust live programming is readily available when
programmers take paths of least resistance.
It seems controlling use of local state is important if we both want rich
abstraction - i.e. where composite networks can be abstracted - and live
programming. (cf.
http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/local-state-is-poison/)
--
bringing s-words to a pen fight
Received on Thu Jan 17 2013 - 19:29:54 GMT