Hi,
I started writing a book last year broadly tracing free software (and
its history) as/and art, kind of a primer with background and
speculation: specifying an artistic codebase with extensive practical
coverage of pluggability, extensible GNU/Emacs, promiscuous computing,
Lisp and fine excursions into random war and live coding amongst many
others.
At the moment, it sits sadly unfinished (after six chapters) as I
don't have time to work more on it. The plan is to expand the current
research for a POD (print on demand) publication, perhaps for early
next year. Some kind of free software POD workflow, using TeX and so
on would be great to have up and running. The question of format for
such a work is also interesting.
At the same time, we also have our first POD out this month (in
association with OpenMute), entitled xxxxx with plenty of code
listings, and contributions from (amongst many others) Florian Cramer,
Paul Graham, Graham Harwood, Friedrich Kittler, Otto Roessler, and
Gerald J. Sussman. The introduction is titled Life Coding, and stands
as a major thematic. xxxxx could function as an excellent testbed for
such publications and approaches.
best wishes
Martin
http://www.1010.co.uk/
alex <alex_at_slab.org> writes:
> I was wondering if anyone's thought of writing a book about livecoding.
> Either way, is it a good idea? My initial thought was that we could put
> together a proposal to o'reilly as an excercise, and if they don't
> accept it go ahead anyway, perhaps as a wikibook.
>
> I don't know if it would really fit into o'reilly's series but I'm
> thinking an introductory chapter about each of the main systems, a
> chapter on the theory of interactive programming, a chapter about the
> technicalities of doing so in a range of languages, a bit about cutting
> edge livecoding techniques - use of history, the blurring between code
> and GUI and so on... So instructive but still with plenty room for
> humour.
>
> On one hand a publisher like O'Reilly won't like a proposal with more
> than a few authors, and on the other a wikibook should have as many as
> possible... So we see who's interested I guess.
>
> On the other hand maybe this is a bad/old fashioned idea and we should
> just stick with the wikis we already have. I just think it might be
> something fun to work towards.
>
> alex
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 14:20:08 BST