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
Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 12:22:24 GMT