On 13 January 2013 16:33, David Barbour <dmbarbour_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> It is valid to say that a lot of programming is done in spreadsheets, in the
> real world. But I understand 'real world programming' to be a word phrase
> with a meaning more than the sum of its parts. It refers to something of
> much greater scope and scale and software engineering effort than the vast
> majority of spreadsheets.
Well there's big programs, and small programs. Big programs do indeed
require professional software engineering skills to navigate and
build. There
> 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?
I use the historical term "conversational programming" for what you
describe as interactive programming.
> Use of the word phrase 'interactive programming' was a bad idea from the
> start, since it evokes notions of developing interactive programs, or of
> taking turns developing a program, and always requires a lot of explanation.
> "Live programming" is simply the better term, requiring less explanation and
> sparking the imagination, and is therefore the one we should use.
>
> 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 just
said what terms I have been using, I didn't speak on behalf of anyone
else.
alex
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 17:00:38 GMT