On 9/01/2013 12:18 AM, thor wrote:
>
> On 8 Jan 2013, at 12:55, Ross Bencina wrote:
>>
>> What if you're a scholar looking for a modern open access
>> publication?
>
> Did they just add the "Open Access Submissions" or do you consider
> this not attractive to scholars?
The latter. The open access category is not available for peer-reviewed
papers. If you want a peer reviewed publication you have to suck it up.
It is presented as a choice between "peer reviewed and published" or
"open access."
>> Is "live programming" something different from "live coding"?
>
> There is a paragraph where this is discussed:
I must admit that in my rage I overlooked that.
> <quote> Meanwhile, under the radar of the software engineering
> community at-large, a nascent community has formed around the related
> idea of “live coding”—live audiovisual performances which use
> computers and algorithms as instruments. In contrast to the
> reflective, persistent nature of live programming precursors like
> LISP and Smalltalk, live coding emphasizes the ephemeral, reactive
> nature of live performance. </quote>
>
> I stumbled when I read the last sentence, as many of the live coding
> environments I know are versions of LISP and Smalltalk (Impromptu,
> Fluxus, Extempore, SuperCollider, etc.). And are these live coding
> environments not reflective and persistent? What _kind_ of contrast
> is being conjured up here between live programming and live coding?
I get ephemeral vs. persistent, but reflective vs. reactive ?
> But even if the terms "reflective" and "persistent" are said to be
> contrary to live coding practice, which I consider a mistake in
> phrasing it, perhaps there is a sense in which it would be good to
> make this distinction between live programming and live coding?
The "persistent" thing is interesting because we do see persitence to a
greater or lesser degree in live coding: levels of preparation
(fragments, functions, cut and paste etc) also composition-specific
languages.
A Smalltalk image is persistent in a way that many live coding
environments are not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk#Image-based_persistence
Can someone say which live coding environments have this property?
But I'm not really seeing how you can bring "reflective" into it -- this
is just one of the modes of attention one employs during performance. To
set up an opposition between "reflective" and "reactive" is already
problematic *in any type of improvised performance*. I think it is
useful to recognise that there are different types of attention that can
be applied. Personally I think it would be difficult to perform with
just one mode -- I'd be interested to hear what other people think about
that.
Maybe "pure reflective live programming" could be a thing. All I need is
my fountain pen, paper, and silence. Maybe some coffee.
> Alex you write: "In general I think it would be better if they lost
> the live coding / live programming distinction", but it seems that
> they are framing that distinction in the context of live performance.
> That might well be an interesting distinction and one that could
> perhaps benefit the attempt to define what live coding is.
>
> I'm not sure myself, but what do people think?
See above,
Ross
Received on Tue Jan 08 2013 - 14:00:48 GMT