On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:17 AM, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
> On 13 January 2013 02:15, David Barbour <dmbarbour_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you're just looking for shelter, perhaps. But if I'm searching for
> > progress, I won't find links to PPIG. :)
>
> Have you seen Alan Blackwell's hybrid of Photoshop and Excel?
> http://layerlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/
>
>
I have not. I'll take a look.
> Surely *absolutely masses* of real world programming is successfully
> done with spreadsheets.. Perhaps more than any other form.
>
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.
> I think it's less confusing to use the older term "interactive
> programming" when taking a more general view here.
>
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.
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."
>
> For the record I don't think an audience is at all necessary for live
> coding, I was just pointing out that you can't observe a live coder
> who doesn't have one..
>
Unless you are said coder. :)
>
> > User-interfaces and
> > their elements should be modeled as live programs in a language, i.e.
> such
> > that every element can be inspected, extended, composed, abstracted,
> > reused, remixed. Even if most users don't program, just using their UIs
> > should subtly teach useful programming principles and intuitions,
> providing
> > easy literacy for when they change their minds (as will often be the case
> > for *young* users). I believe that requires creating a new paradigm, one
> > closely aligned to HCI.
>
> Yes this is a grand and fine aim, which I very much share. I think
> there is something missing though - social context.
... Which I did go on to mention, IIRC. Social context is certainly part of
my vision [1].
[1]
http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/social-aspects-of-pl-design/
> I think including music (rather than e.g. implementing business or
> military system designs) as one of the starting points brings a real
> opportunity to consider human interaction and learning in programming
> HCI.
>
Music is a fine starting point. So is telepresence (e.g. via OpenCobalt and
similar). And video games.
>
> Wait, isn't user generated content about corporations profiting from
> free labour?
No. If corporations profit, it's because they were wise enough to
accommodate UGC rather than fight it. E.g. Corporation profits cannot, for
example, explain fanfiction.net, nor the community of user-generated
extensions to Baldur's Gate II.
User-generated content is really just a way for humans to express
themselves with regards to one of their interests. There are a lot of
reasons for this: Ideas spark new ideas. A lot of "what ifs" go unanswered.
UGC typically has a lower barrier for both entry and consumption (e.g.
because characters and world don't need to be introduced anew).
A powerful feature of UGC is how it scales and networks and expands. The
thing is, a single human can consume only a linear amount of content, but
UGC generates an amount of content proportional to the number of humans
participating, thus in a popular system there will always be more fresh,
human-generated content than anyone can ever consume. Further, the UGC (or
at least the popular stuff) itself becomes a spark for new ideas and a seed
for new content.
There are many opportunities for UGC if you can put aside your cynicism and
leverage it.
> This seems over idealistic to me. With appstores etc, things are
> becoming less programmable.
>
That doesn't even make sense. Appstores can only exist because things are
programmable. The only issue I see today is that it's too hard to program a
smartphone - it'd be too physically hard to use an IDE on the phone, for
example. I think AR glasses are a more promising target, and more
conveniently enable a broader range of apps (e.g. via painting widgets on
various surfaces, virtual pets, open world content and games, etc.).
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 16:33:54 GMT