mån 2008-01-07 klockan 12:21 +0000 skrev alex:
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 11:18 +1000, Andrew Sorensen wrote:
> > Hmm, I was hoping to avoid this conversation but now you've got my
> > mind ticking :) I'm not sure if I'm completely following you but I
> > think what you're arguing is that Livecoding is - at least in a purist
> > sense - about the direct connection between the program and the task
> > domain. That in some sense the machine becomes unnecessary and the
> > common two relationships are removed (i.e. program->machine and
> > machine->task domain are rendered unnecessary). The dominant
> > relationship therefore becomes program->task - with the implication of
> > this being that any reification must take place cerebrally.
>
> A beautiful thought!
>
> To pull things in the opposite direction, here's quite an arduous way of
> programming that highlighting the machine step, coding with boxes and
> lines, in ASCII.
>
> *------------------------*
> | .--------. \
> .-x--------. | osc~ 5 | *
> | osc~ 500 | `-x------' |
> `-x--------' | |
> | .-x------. |
> | | *~ 300 | |
> | `-x------' |
> *---* | |
> | *------------*
> .-x------.
> | *~ 0.2 |
> `-x------'
> |
> *
> |\
> | *
> | |
> .-x-x--.
> | dac~ |
> `------'
> http://doc.gold.ac.uk/~ma503am/alex/textual-patching/
>
> You can define pd objects and connect them together. Layout is
> preserved as well. Much like in ghostbusters, you can't cross the
> lines, and there isn't syntax for different box types (messages and
> numbers). Fixing this would be short work, but I ran out of train
> journey :)
>
> Sadly you can't do live patching with it, but perhaps this could be a
> starting point for thinking about more interesting ways of programming
> with text.
>
> alex
>
>
Nice! I'm sure the guys on the pd-list would find this useful. You
should send it to them aswell ^^
It makes you wonder how a dataflow language would look with a text-only
interface. Scheme, perhaps?
Gasten
Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 13:27:32 GMT