I'm not a computer scientist, but isn't uniqueness essential for an
interpreter/compiler to work? (at least effectively, and I suppose
effectiveness is what you need when you do live coding).
Also, what does this have to do with business logic? Isn't a fault
tolerant programming/computing system the thing everybody would pay lots
of money for?
Integrating interpretors into editors with some kind of automatic syntax
correction is surely useful to *avoid *errors, but far away from
*allowing *errors (like the guitar).
Maybe the point here is that computers are inherent digital, i.e.
discrete, whereas our physical environment is continuous, which
incorporates some sort of built-in error tolerance.
Your last point leads away from the actual discussion, as these errors
are not directly related to the act of playing.
** <
http://pda.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=unambiguousness>Thomas
alex wrote::
> Yes all good points, although perhaps the reason why programming
> languages are so unforgiving is more to do with the requirements of
> business logic than any innate restrictions on computer readable
> languages.
>
> Languages where you can't have syntax errors are interesting here (where
> any combination of the alphabet is syntactically valid), as is Craig's
> livecoding with computer readable english, interactive fiction style.
>
> Integrating interpreters into editors (for example with eclipse) allows
> an editing environment rich enough to help avoid errors too.
>
> Also there are probably some errors you can do with a drumkit that would
> lead to a crash of the whole performance, such as break your last stick
> or fall off your stool.
>
> alex
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 20:58:36 BST