You are making sense. One of the main difference for me is that
relations drawn by lines are (1) explicit one-by-one connections,
which (2) are drawn when they are drwan. Symbolic relations are (1)
implicit, generic connections. If you write y = x, you don't have to
know what x is, and (2) you can write it both as a definition of an
operation as well as the operation itself. This is not so because it
has to be so (as you have argued), but it turns out that historically
this is how it has become today (including the reactable). Many
things requre abstract thought, but what is it by itself? I am
convinced that abstract thought has to do with recursion, but so much
not recursion of signal flow, but recursion of intervention.
htms
julian
>2009/10/5 tom_at_nullpointer.co.uk <tom_at_nullpointer.co.uk>:
>> So why do people think PD/MAX are more visual and easier to
>> follow for the 'visually minded'?
>> because they obviously do..
>
>There are a number of nice things about PD/Max but I think primarily
>because they are live coding languages.
>
>> Drawing in an arraytable in pd feels very different to me than bracketing up
>> an array in text.
>
>That's part of the IDE rather than the language, I'd say.
>
>>>>Pd and max are not graphical programming languages.
>>>>differences between PD and supercollider but
>>> spatial and non-spatial is not one of them
>>
>> im also a bit confused between the usage of graphical and spatial.
>> How are you defining the relationship between the two?
>
>I think everyone is confused about it, myself included. I don't see
>how you can say one language is more graphical than the other, I don't
>think it's well defined. PD and Max don't use any spatial information
>in the language (apart from the weird execution order gotcha in Max).
>Haskell optionally uses spatial layout in its syntax so you could say
>it is 'more spatial'. In supercollider, haskell, c, etc if you put
>two words next to each other that means something different from when
>you put them far apart, which isn't true in PD and Max, so in that
>sense PD and Max are less spatial than just about any other computer
>language.
>
>Someone pointed out that the reactable used distance meaningfully in
>its language here before, in that case the reactable language is the
>most spatial computer music language I know of.
>
>Am I making any sense?
>
>alex
>
>--
>http://yaxu.org/
--
.
Received on Mon Oct 05 2009 - 12:31:15 BST