On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 21:25 +0530, AlgoMantra wrote:
>
> my answer would be: sequencer is a particular case of
> programmable
> machines and sequencer score is a particular class of code.
>
> dude, a turing machine can only be described as a turing machine :)
not all programming languages are turing machines. there really isn't a
definition of a programming language in this sense (as far as I know,
and I'm not a computer scientist, so correct me if I'm wrong)
I would say that is something to do with abstraction, but I've livecoded
lots of languages without that either (and you can have a turing machine
expressed without abstraction).
I got a little worried about this with daisy chain, because it shares so
little with programming (no memory, not even a linear program, erm
"shape") - there were some papers I read that said self modifying petri
nets were turing complete... but I don't really care now ;)
maybe it means that the music, visuals or smell come about as a side
effect of the process you are shaping. I remember first learning scheme
at school, it felt that the result of the program was almost a side
effect - it's like you design something intricate in it's own right
which happens to give you the answer to your question.
this is where interesting things happen, when you get things wrong, you
get the wrong answer in a beautiful way - "making art is all about
creating a situation where accidents can happen", (who said that?) and
there aren't to many places more accidents can happen that writing code
in front of lots of people on a projector!
dave
Received on Sat Jan 05 2008 - 19:32:10 GMT