eh? why would you want to remove syntax? i'm not sure i understand
the concept. max/msp/jitter clearly has a syntax to it, and a
hierarchy of how objects are connected and which ones can be connected.
what you describe sounds a bit like the Reactable:
http://youtube.com/
results?search_query=reactable
On Mar 6, 2008, at 10:25 AM, alex wrote:
>
> I've been pondering about what a syntax free language might look like.
>
> Perhaps something like max/puredata. These graph based languages
> still
> have textual labels like other languages, but the syntax is done by
> connecting the labels together with wires, to particular inlets and
> outlets.
>
> But how could you get the meaning across without the syntax of
> wires? I
> think by making distance meaningful, putting labels close together or
> far apart would somehow describe their relationship. Instead of a
> graph
> of labels you would make clusters of labels with particular semantic
> arrangements.
>
> I suppose you could just end up re-implementing wires - instead of
> explicitly connecting labels, you implicitly connect them, perhaps
> nearest neighbours are connected together via compatible inlets /
> outlets. This could be an efficient way of making a graph. But I'm
> thinking beyond this, to a system where programs are described using
> shape, where distance is meaningful... For example if I move one
> oscillator closer to another one they influence each other more and
> begin to harmonise, or if I move a bang closer to a counter, the
> counter
> resets on a bang more often.
>
> Clearly I haven't thought this through, but does anyone have any more
> ideas how this could work?
>
> alex
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:36:30 GMT