On 06/03/2008, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
>
>
> I think I was misunderstood here. I wasn't saying that max/puredata
> don't have syntax, but the opposite. I was saying that they _do_ have
> syntax, but asking how could we replace that syntax of wires with a
> semantics of space?
Very good. I'm happy we got that out of the way.
> Or one on a non-euclidean surface, perhaps where you could zoom in
> infinitely.
I think this "surface" if going to have to be non-euclidean in rather a lot
of dimensions. It looks to me like we will be "overloading space" rather
heavily. MAX already overloads the meaning of space; space is used as the
equivalent of comments in that a spacial ordering is (typically) used to
indicate the structure of the patch yet MAX also uses the left to right
ordering of modules to determine execution order. Those two may not line up.
One thing that bothers me in spatial ordering (and sorting records....) is
that if we have two points A and B that are close to each other and in some
sort of relationship and place a third point C so it's near to A it will
also be near to B... which may not be intended.
We can accept that (like we accept changing pitch or volume will also change
timbre in many instruments) or we can involve a extra dimension (say colour
or height or direction) or have a gesture that "curves space".
This is one aspect where I think the Reactable deals with the topic in a way
that's still a bit naive (though solving this will likely go at the expense
of intuitivity)
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 12:55:19 GMT