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.
>On 3/12/07, DJ Fadereu <<mailto:fadereu_at_gmail.com>fadereu_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>that is - the messages are altering the code. the messages are being
>sent in some kind of XML.
>
>the audience is the DJ. you are....well, some kind of god.
>
>
>
>I'm very happy that you have such a high opinion of me and a bit
>envious of the audiences you are getting :-P
>
>I think so much audience participation will either fail to work (due
>to a lack of code that will run) or get very messy very soon.
>
>It might work for a very limited context. Interestingly, a while ago
>I found a sort of very limited Nomic (well, it's a game where you
>can modify the rules at least) in Fluxx;
><http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/Rules3.0.html>
>http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/Rules3.0.html
>
>
>Fluxx, while very enjoyable, is also so random that it verges on not
>allowing for real strategy. I think strategy in games is analogous
>to the way we put a larger musical structure into code so I fear
>that limiting the system in that way will lead to a musically less
>satisfying experience.... But that's very open for experimentation;
>I could be completely wrong.
>
>Kas.
--
.
Received on Thu Apr 12 2007 - 18:31:48 BST