Adam;
I couldn't help but notice your PhD transfer report that you use Turing
> completeness as requirement on livecoding languages. I can understand the
> move to a more rigorous definition of livecoding languages to exclude things
> like pressing merely buttons on a groovebox or rewiring devices in Reason on
> the fly, but, and here's my question, *how important is the actual
> Turing-completeness aspect?*
>
>
While this is no answer to the actual question, I don't think that
requirement was introduced by Alex here. As far as I can remember the
requirement was always there but not formally taken seriously. I took that
to be why Al-jazari is listed as "refused TOPLAP aproval" here
http://toplap.org/index.php/ToplapSystems
I'm not sure I would agree with that, even. I wouldn't like to be the one to
have the prove that Al-jazari, for a infinitely large field with a unlimited
amount of robots *isn't* Turing complete. To me the appealing visualisation
of the act of programming and the total exposure of the state of the program
itself (the position of the robots) in addition to the actual outcome (beeps
and beats) is more relevant to the TOPLAP aesthetic than Turing
completeness, in that case.
That's just my opinion. There might be people who will insist on rigorously
sticking to the canon. I hope there are, because I'm still interested in the
possibility of editing the rules on the WiKi as a performance and those
people would make that a LOT more amusing.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Sun Mar 07 2010 - 16:19:05 GMT