hi,
I sometimes wonder if the attraction people feel toward max / pd is
more about the immediate graphical feedback rather than the actual
graphical interface to the language.
I notice with students that the ability to see the numbers changing on
screen gives them them the confidence to experiment more aggressively
as they find bugging check more easy.
Also another feature of Max / pd which I think appeals to many people
is the fact that bits of the patching will work even if other parts
dont.
In my own experience I have been playing with ChucK a lot this summer
and found that it is now my preferred tool, due to the way it allows
me to handle programming constructs rather than attempt to express
them within Max.
Scott
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:45 PM, tom_at_nullpointer.co.uk
<tom_at_nullpointer.co.uk> wrote:
> So why do people think PD/MAX are more visual and easier to
> follow for the 'visually minded'?
> because they obviously do..
>
>
> Drawing in an arraytable in pd feels very different to me than bracketing up
> an array in text.
>
>>>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?
>
> Tom Betts
> ----------------------
> www.nullpointer.co.uk
> www.odessadesign.co.uk
> ----------------------
>
>
> alex wrote:
>>
>> 2009/10/5 Dave Griffiths <dave_at_pawfal.org>:
>>>
>>> The difference between text and graphical programming seems fairly
>>> arbitrary to me
>>
>> I make this point every time this discussion comes up but it seems
>> no-one either agrees or disagrees with me. Maybe I'm not making any
>> sense. I'll try again.
>>
>> Pd and max are not graphical programming languages. They are textual.
>> They are no more visual than C. You make an object and it does
>> nothing until you give it a name. Then you connect it to other
>> objects also with names. You move the boxes around the screen and the
>> meaning doesn't change (except with weird edge cases in Max, but
>> that's a side issue).
>>
>> Maybe if I make an outrageous statement someone will disagree with me;
>> when artists who say they find pd or max more intuitive than textual
>> languages because they are more visual and therefore more in tune with
>> their visual thinking are plain wrong. They don't understand how they
>> think, and don't know what they're doing, just like everyone else.
>> They are using a symbolic language to make art and shouldn't be afraid
>> to admit it.
>>
>> There are language differences between PD and supercollider but
>> spatial and non-spatial is not one of them. Both allow symbolic
>> abstractions, loops and conditionals, and both require abstract
>> thought to make or understand a patch.
>>
>> http://yaxu.org/textual-patching/
>>
>> I think what makes live coding is some system where a human composes a
>> string of symbols from an alphabet, while a process interprets the
>> string according to some Turing complete language rules, so that the
>> interpreter follows changes to the code.
>>
>> You might have a language that isn't Turing complete, but still allows
>> interesting abstractions, and call that live coding. I'm not sure if
>> I'd agree or not, that would be an interesting route to follow but for
>> now I think the turing-completeness is important.
>>
>> alex
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database:
>> 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00
>>
>
Received on Mon Oct 05 2009 - 11:56:29 BST