Hi,
To answer both to you and Alex further : then you should look at Kyma
or Iannix.
http://www.symbolicsound.com/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/iannix/
And these systems are quite old right now. So, I don't think there are
any mode about that. They even were there before any Max, SC ...
Unfortunately, I don't have the $$ to try Kyma and just tried Iannix a
few years ago, which is quite interesting about symbolic and spatial
coding. Of course not live, as far as I know.
Btw, I would like to thank you all about this ever longing thread that
generated a really interesting discussion from all contributors, coming
out from an announcement from thor ... interesting ...
Best
S.
tom_at_nullpointer.co.uk a écrit :
> Just out of interest..
>
> How much difference would it make if all the boxes in max were icons
> you selected from a dropdown list or something, with no 'english' text?
>
>
> Tom Betts
> ----------------------
> www.nullpointer.co.uk
> www.odessadesign.co.uk
> ----------------------
>
>
> alex wrote:
>> While I'm hear, it's transfer at goldsmiths tomorrow!
>> http://slab.org/transfer/
>>
>> 2009/10/15 evan.raskob [lists] <lists_at_lowfrequency.org>:
>>> And I also have to disagree
>>> about the position of boxes on the screen - it's a fundamental part of
>>> MaxMSP that things happen from left-to-right (this is not the case
>>> in Pd)
>>> and so you *must* read patches from left-to-right otherwise you will
>>> get
>>> drastically different results, as anyone who has done any real
>>> patching in
>>> Max knows.
>>
>> In Pd, execution order is the order than you connect the wires in.
>> Using X position in Max certainly seems like an better way than that,
>> and I'm happy to take your point that it is important (I've never used
>> max). I don't think it's as important as left to right order in
>> non-graph languages though.
>>
>>> Interesting point, but now MaxMSP patches are in JSON notation, so
>>> they are
>>> essentially Javascript that can be livecoded and edited.
>>
>> So max is a live coding IDE for javascript now? Interesting.
>>
>>> They certainly aren't - textual symbols are processed
>>> by different parts of the brain.
>>
>> I'm not sure if the "different parts" thing is true, from what I can
>> tell from a naive glance at the literature, brain areas are
>> multi-talented things. I agree though that reading is different from
>> looking at a picture though so we're on the same page.
>>
>> However, you're wrong to imply that we don't read a max patch. It's
>> full of symbols! In max a box is meaningless unless you type into it.
>>
>> Look at all the words and numbers in this simple patch:
>> http://taknight.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/firstnotes1.jpg
>>
>>> It's a very different experience
>>> connecting lines and occasionally typing in object names than typing
>>> everything in words and symbols.
>>
>> Sure but it's a different experience writing code in eclipse than it
>> is in emacs, and different again in vi. They all require visual
>> faculties, and some (not PD, and only in a limited way Max) require
>> spatial arrangement.
>>
>>> That's not the case for most people, especially
>>> non-designers. There
>>> have been studies that show that their brains recognize words as
>>> meaning
>>> something, but not as graphics or symbols in their own right (I hope
>>> I am
>>> explaining this well... wish I could dig up that paper).
>>
>> No need, I agree. Similarly hearing sounds is perceived differently
>> to hearing words (cf sine wave speech and noise speech). But I think
>> it gets more complicated than that when we're coding. When we zoom
>> out and think about the structure of what we're looking at, we think
>> in more spatial terms, and structure of the code on the screen helps
>> with that. This is true both with max and with java. With max the
>> spatial arrangement is not part of the language. With java, more of
>> it is part of the language, with organisation into classes, objects
>> etc.
>>
>>> For most people,
>>> words are words and pictures are pictures, and while they get the
>>> hang of
>>> the "text-as-symbols" eventually, they need to adapt to them over time.
>>
>> Sure, but I think we diverge where you say a max patch is a picture.
>> The interface might let you make a picture but that is nothing to do
>> with the language.
>>
>>> I
>>> think this is why photographers and graphic designers take to
>>> programming
>>> well (in my experience) - they already have the mental toolkit for
>>> seeing
>>> the worlds as a collection of abstract symbols laid out spatially.
>>
>> Interesting...
>>
>>> Anyway, the funny thing is that now that I've come to the end of
>>> this long
>>> rant, I just had an offline conversation with Dave about this, and I
>>> think
>>> I've been intellectually nudged closer to the central view that the
>>> real
>>> issue is about accessibility, there is less difference between text and
>>> image (even though I reserve the view that there is a neurological
>>> basis for
>>> treating them differently)
>>
>> Text is represented within an image, but I agree evokes a different
>> category of perception. As I say though, a max patch is fundamentally
>> textual.
>>
>> But yes great point about accessibility. What makes max accessible?
>>
>> 1/ Live coding
>> 2/ You can put words anywhere, it doesn't matter.
>> 3/ Great help
>> 4/ Easy to share patches
>> 5/ You can't make syntax errors (syntax checking happens at
>> mouse-click time)
>> 6/ You can edit someone else's patch without fully understanding it
>> (due to 5/)
>> 7/ Nice a/v library functions
>> 8/ Some myth about max being more 'visual' means people drop their guard
>>
>> What makes java accessible?
>>
>> 1/ ... err
>>
>>> and the "accident" of using text to describe
>>> complex instructions (computer programs) to machines due to typewriters
>>> being so ubiquitous. I'll leave you with that thought...
>>
>> Oh, that reminds me of something I was reading yesterday by Ted Nelson:
>> http://geeks-bearing-gifts.com/gbgContents.html
>>
>> Yes it's strange that seems so solid and fixed about computing is so
>> arbitrary and, well ... broken. The qwerty keyboard is a fine example
>> of that.
>>
>> I don't think the notion of text, as discrete symbols, is an accident
>> though. If you are going to organise your ideas about the world into
>> discrete categories, to understand it, make predictions etc, then
>> you're going to want to give those categories names (symbols), and
>> want to combine and manipulate those names with computations.
>>
>> alex
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database:
>> 270.14.18/2437 - Release Date: 10/15/09 03:57:00
>>
>
Received on Fri Oct 16 2009 - 19:46:06 BST
