On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:59 AM, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
>
> > I have read that the distinction between 'interactive' and 'reactive' is
> > that interactive programs involve taking turns: the program waits for
> user
> > input, the user provides input, the user later waits for program output.
> > Reactive programs, meanwhile, take action regardless of whether input is
> > available.
>
> That seems a peculiar definition of interaction (and reaction) to me,
> could you reference it please?
>
It was the documentation for either Lustre or Esterel (both are synchronous
reactive dataflow languages) where I first read that definition, but I've
seen it elsewhere.
>
> I use the historical term "conversational programming" for what you
> describe as interactive programming.
>
That phrase turns up some interesting stuff, but nothing that I'd describe
as interactive.
>
> >
> > The fact that your little community objects is immaterial. At least
> you've
> > still got "live coding."
>
> Wait, who is "we", what position of authority are you taking? Are you
> actually trying to be belittling or did you miss an emoticon?
I mean the [livecode] or TOPLAP community, whose more vociferous members
have repeatedly complained about how 'live programming' is usurped in the
mainstream (cf. the recent '[livecode] live 2013' topic). It is clear I'm
following a trend you dislike, but I plan to continue doing so.
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 17:23:17 GMT