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 - 12:10:03 BST