An edited book with chapters contributed by different authors could be the
most democratic. Certainly, an O'Reilly's type how-to guide wouldn't have
so many authors.
I like the way we've tried to be quite open via this list in the past.
Books aren't for everyone though because there is either an open call
followed by a review process which may not let everyone through, or a small
core of authors who take responsibility for their own output, and you might
be tied by a publishing contract to not put any parts online in a wiki as
you write.
(Not sure live coding is sufficiently established to allow for a book yet,
but then, perhaps the establishment is an outcome of creating a book! )
Alternative possibilties might be a conference (with proceedings) on live
coding. Or to actually hold the World Live Coding Championships.
Perhaps in the short-term the wiki world is fine, but happy to hear of any
longer term thoughts like this.
I did investigate with one academic journal about a special issue on live
coding, though they could only guarantee space at the earliest in 2009. And
the more widely distributed press articles are a better promotion if that
is the main aim of writing.
Anyway, happy to be involved whatever gets decided.
best
N
--On 27 August 2006 11:43:32 +0100 alex <alex_at_slab.org> wrote:
>
> 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 Sun Aug 27 2006 - 20:20:18 BST