Hi Tom
Thanks for the interesting comments.
> Looks cool Thor, but (and im sure this has been answered before)
> i'm still not sure why building sequences with characters is much
> different from toggling lights on a stepgrid (real or virtual).
I'm not sure it's any different either. That said - having made some
GUI systems myself -
I would not dare to enter the frustrations involved in making GUIs for
what the ixi lang does.
(although I have already proposed approaches, w.r.t. modulateable
stepsize, polyrhythms and different tunings:
http://ixi-audio.net/content/download/ixiquarks/img/polymachine.jpg
http://ixi-audio.net/content/download/ixiquarks/img/gridder.jpg
http://ixi-audio.net/content/download/ixiquarks/img/scalesynth.jpg
http://ixi-audio.net/content/download/ixiquarks/img/sounddrops.jpg )
You see, having the "stepgrid" as an array of numbers in a text
editor, rather than boxes in a GUI,
it's much easier to write methods that work on it, such as inversion,
expand, shift by nr. of places,
transpose, swap members, scramble array, reverse, etc.
For me, the ixi lang is a nice solution for setting up a constraint
performance system.
I spent a few evenings over a couple of weeks to make the system, and
it is much more
expressive than any GUI system would be. For what it does (has to be
stressed)!
> Again, Im sure this has been answered, but there must be certain
> convolutions or functions that are handled more natively and
> naturally by text based langauges (iteration? polymorphism?,
> inheritance?) and therefore more relevent in livecoding than
> sequencing, which to me seems mainly a spatial issue (and therefore
> more graphical?)
Yes, for sure. And perhaps less so in ixi lang as it is indeed very
graphical.
(That's also why I called it "ixi lang", i.e. with reference to the
graphical focus of that project).
Better look at other live coders for examples on how language is more
natural for certain
things than graphical approaches. But of course you know that.
Thor
Received on Mon Oct 05 2009 - 09:54:58 BST
