On 4/12/07, Julian Rohrhuber <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. 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".
Maybe I should read this Glass Bead Game book, it seems like the talk about
that was quite paralel to this idea.
Kas.
Received on Thu Apr 12 2007 - 19:05:24 BST