>On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 21:56 +0200, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>> yes, I think this is one good live coding paradigm - which we should
>> give a name. Would it be reasonable to call it discrete time-mapping?
>
>Yes!
>
>> (a variant may be called time-warping if appropriate)
>
>You mean the same but with 'looser' time?
maybe yes? e.g. if you apply nonlinear functions to time, so that the
relation between progression and sound events become too complicated
to follow, or keep on the verge of comprehensability. This may
include fuzzy timing, too.
>
>> >In pure functional programming though, it seems to make less sense to
>> >have functions that just take a timestamp as input, and not take
>> >advantage of for example lazy evaluation. I think your answer with
>> >jitlib is to have a pure functions that are modified by an imperative
>> >process.
>>
>> in a way, yes. What you have in sc is stateless graphs that create
>> stateful streams. Proxies implement a semantics of what a change in
>> the stateless graph means for the streams. This change can be a
>> change by a code modification or by a program that creates the new
>> state. Such a program can be composed of proxies, too, of course.
>
>Nice
>
>> currently I'm also struggling with a good way to describe textual
>> changes. If you know a simple good solution for a diff system, I'd be
>> interested.
>
>Good question, rewrite rules maybe?
would you deduce rewrite rules from the code changes? I often use
rewrite rules for composition, but I've never used it for analysis of
code changes. Maybe in a little language subset it would work.
>I guess any diff system will make
>mistakes though. I suppose a really good code diff system would be
>built into the editor, watching the edits, but even then a programmer
>might do clever tricks to save typing.
for me it can be pretty simple. I just want to avoid keeping multiple
copies of the full code, and just have the changes.
>
>Perhaps the live coding languages of the future will be designed to be
>easy to diff, so edits can be more easily reasoned about.
I think if one has solved the reference problem, the diff should not
be the big structural problem - it is just a mirror of the underlying
denotational structure.
> > I'm interested what you find out. I like Haskell (from looking at it)
>> and it would be good to know how such things work in static type
>> systems.
>
>I'm just reading about Q, which has similar syntax to haskell but with
>dynamic typing and some interesting features.
I've seen that there are sound features.
what do you find interesting?
>It has some good music
>stuff too, interfacing with pd, supercollider and faust.
>
>Speechless is out of beta by the way:
> http://speechless.lurk.org/rhythm.html
nice - I'll try it tomorrow..
--
.
Received on Sun Apr 01 2007 - 22:35:04 BST