On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 18:11 +0100, alex wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 16:42 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > I agree, and also programming != text...
>
> You mean like al-jazari? I think a sequence of icons is text. Or do
> you mean like PD/Max? A patch is text as well, but with word order
> indicated with directional lines.
I think text and graphs are isomorphic - i.e. you can as easily compile
a binary straight from a tree of nodes, as from a text file.
I'm a bit lacking in compiler design knowledge, but in most cases I
think a compiler makes a graph from the text, rather than the other way
round.
> I find it very difficult to explain live coding to someone who does not
> know what coding is. It's easy to find yourself describing it in terms
> of what it isn't, which is useless if your audience doesn't know what a
> compiler is.
>
> I made text the starting point, because everyone knows what that is
> (otherwise they wouldn't be reading the essay), and everyone knows what
> lists of instructions are. However I'm very happy to see alternatives.
As text is by far the most conventional form of programming, this is
probably sensible - I just don't think livecoding has to be all about
text.
Sorry for sticking the oar in - something to discuss in Sheffield :)
cheers,
dave
Received on Sat Jun 02 2007 - 12:21:38 BST