Oh, I didn't know about this. Thanks for the note Nick.
Regarding your paper, I like your strong definition of live coding as an
activity where you really have to engage with or rewrite the code ad hoc.
(i.e., the “more profound live coding must confront the running algorithm”),
and then you state that much live coding fails to live up to that promise.
Good to have some punching statements.
On 3 Dec 2011, at 10:48, Click Nilson wrote:
> Coincidentally, Thor's new live coding article 'Algorithms as Scores: Coding Live Music' has been selected as the 'free' download from the latest LMJ, so another live coding article available here:
> http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/lmj/-/21
>
>
>> If I can give some critique; though you never say explicitly that the named examples are interpreted languages in a few spots you talk about those, then list some systems and it sounds a bit like those are all interpreted.
>
> happy to hear critiques. You may be over-emphasizing how much I'd thought closely about interpreted vs jit at the point of trying to come up with accessible examples. Sorry if anything slightly technically misleading.
Received on Sat Dec 03 2011 - 15:36:17 GMT