>>On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 22:42 +0100, alex wrote:
>>> An interesting live coding environment referenced by that superglue
>>> paper:
>>> http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/pivotal/
>>
>>Also this looks really interesting, although it seems I haven't got the
>>right font installed here so haven't got far:
>> http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/ch-phd.pdf
>>
>>al
>
> it is worth installing the font ...
>
> just a "random" pick:
>
> "Scripting" is a term that has gained currency in recent years.
> Educational software with some programmability is described as having
> "scripting capability." In part, a meaningful distinction is being
> made: a scripting language promises greater simplicity in return for
> reduced expressive power. But there is a rhetorical agenda as well:
> to reassure the listener that no dangerously substantial ideas lurk
> within. The idea is afoot that students will have no need for the
> specialized skills of programming, because they can just "script."
> This is thin gruel for growing minds.
> With no sense of a growing competence and power to which students'
> tool-related
> programming experiences, large and small, might synergistically
> contribute, the
> scriptable tool scenario promises a balkanized educational technology,
> where
> students' ability to "go beyond the representation given" does not get off
> the
> ground. The much preferable alternative, argued in detail by diSessa
> (2000), would include educational tools in, or interface them to, a
> unifying "computational medium." Every episode of scripting would
> then also be an investment in what diSessa rightly calls a new
> computational literacy, and I am here calling programming.
To some extent this is happening - at least in the field of graphics. A
few years ago graphics applications were hastily rolling their own
extension languages, leading to the situation where you needed to learn a
dozen badly implemented and domain specific languages. Slowly people found
ways to sneak better designed languages in to unify things - and now a lot
of applications are now converging on these languages officially (or at
least using standardised languages).
There seems to be a learning process involved that designing your own
extension language for widespread adoption is a bad idea in the longterm.
The name "scripting language" is indeed a simply a marketing term, but
often they are much harder than "real" programming languages for general
tasks - I've come across many artists who have been forced to learn dodgy
languages and find it liberating when moving to a more general purpose
"real" language.
cheers,
dave
Received on Thu Mar 29 2007 - 08:56:09 BST