>On 4/12/07, Julian Rohrhuber
><<mailto:rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de>rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
>interesting, I hadn't heard of this. The connection is appropriate to
>a ceratin degree, I think. Live coding was from the very beginning
>very much about communication by rule changes. The only major
>difference maybe is that in live coding the sound (or the image)
>crosses the level of text. Of course there are examples of live
>coding of text, and, of course live coding of code.
>
>
>
>True. Because of that (and this is a major difference for our
>purposes) Livecoding tells the computer what to do while Nomic tells
>the players what to do so livecoding isn't quite as self-referential
>as Nomic.
in a way, it is just as self-referential, but the reference is
polymorphic. i.e. writer - text - sound - writer
or
text - sound - writer - text
or
writerA - text - writerB - sound - writerB - text - writerA
maybe others?
>That's a major issue for me since I'd like the rules of this little
>(yet to be devised game) to be administrated at least partially by
>the computer. Ideally they should be mutable as well. The problem
>there (amongst toher things) is that one of the ways of winning
>Nomic is pointing out that is has "crashed" which is a hard way to
>win (at least in my brief experience with it) while intentionally
>getting a livecoding system stuck is quite easy. I'd like the rules
>to discourage intentional crashes, at least early on in the game. "I
>didn't know you could do that" is more fun then "I wish you hadn't
>done that".
In jitlib there is a special environment (LazyEnvir with Maybe
proxies) that can be networked and catches recursions. It does not
look for solutions, but using list comprehensions this might be
possible, too.
--
.
Received on Thu Apr 12 2007 - 20:22:29 BST