On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM, thor <th.list_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It seemed after that discussion that live coding and live programming were
> quite equal terms, separated from interactive programming which is more
> the term as used in industry. (And nobody seems to have yet understood
> the Live workshop's distinction between the LC and LP, BTW).
>
It seems to be the connotations, not the denotations, that differ. When
you're programming music and doing social, artistic stuff, it's "live
coding". When you're off on your lonesome observing immediate (~ very low
latency) feedback for your edits, it's "live programming". When the UI
itself is based around editing the program, it's "interactive programming".
The technology might be the same for all three.
English has a lot of scenarios like this. E.g. the same substance is called
magma or lava depending on where it happens and what it's doing. Same with
meteor and asteroid. Or (in some cases) nail and shrapnel.
There is no "authority" on definitions in English. Even dictionaries are
descriptive of how we use the language, not prescriptive. If enough people
use "live programming" to mean something different than "live coding", then
that's just how it is.
>From my perspective: I've heard and used the phrase "live programming" for
years before I heard about "live coding" and its close relationship with
music.
Regards,
Dave
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 20:50:46 GMT