On 13 January 2013 07:24, Ross Bencina <rossb-lists_at_audiomulch.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't consider construction of a deterministic dataflow patch "live
> coding", I'd call it "live patching." I thought that distinction was quite
> clear in the vernacular.
I consider live patching as a subset of live coding. PD is a Turing
complete language anyway..
> For me it is about the execution of *algorithms*. Not just data
> specification or the construction of dataflow graphs. If a dataflow graph
> clearly expresses an algorithm -- well that's a different matter. I agree
> with what you say below about the ontology problem. But if a performance
> convinces me that an algorithm is there, then I think it can qualify as live
> coding (in all the cases you mention).
What is an algorithm anyway? To me, functional programming seems to be
the most popular approach in live coding circles, and if your
definition of algorithms includes constructs in pure functional
programming, surely it also includes dataflow programming as a
declarative sibling?
> Perhaps "performed conceptual art of the reified algorithm" would be a
> better moniker than "live coding"?
Has a nice ring to it :)
alex
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 11:28:56 GMT