>
> On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 10:22 +0000, Dave Griffiths wrote:
>> > IMHO the audience is better off perceiving the music via the sound
>> > rather than via the code though.
>>
>> To me, this highlights a problem with the code.
>>
>> One of the reasons I spent some time looking at forms of code which go
>> beyond the static ascii page is to make it more connected with the 'end
>> result'. I think it's important to find ways of presenting programming
>> which are clear and readable by a lay audience (I know I'm in the
>> minority
>> with this view).
>
> I'd restate this problem as - how to define a language that is richly
> expressive so it can be used to compose music, but does not need any
> training to read.
>
> I think you manage this in al-jazari etc by
> a) use metaphor in the syntax of the language -- robots, daisy chains,
> thought bubbles etc. It's easy (and a joy) for a lay viewer to
> understand registers, iteration, sequences, functions etc in these
> terms. It's not that the language is 'intuitive', it's that they take
> advantage of knowledge and understanding we have already have.
>
> b) using small alphabets, consisting of familiar icons, and not
> combining them into words. This makes the language simple and easy to
> grasp.
>
> And I agree this works very well, I think because it is so well done
> that it can be appreciated as part of the music.
>
> I think though that b) is a big deal, that there is a place for pure
> textual live coding and probably always will be.
>
>> I now think that this objective makes livecoding better for the
>> performer
>> too.
>
> I think there are pros/cons.
Yes b) is a massive problem, especially in the light that I had to write a
scheme based system for our recording the other night (sans audience), and
I need to explore that for a bit I think.
The main problem with b) is that it makes abstraction difficult. I need to
rethink ways of doing this. Axioms for building on in a visual way - but
it's hard to come up with anything approaching quote, atom, eq, cons, car,
cdr and cond.
cheers,
dave
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 15:42:46 GMT