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?
> >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? 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.
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'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. 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
alex
Received on Sun Apr 01 2007 - 21:58:27 BST