>On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 13:26 +0200, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>> >On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 09:45 -0400, mcburton wrote:
>> >> This looks to be more focused on the visual than audio, but I think
>> >> the "visual coding platform" is interesting. What does the toplap
>> >> community think of visual coding vs textual coding?
>> >
>> >diagrammatic languages == text based languages
>> >
>> >for instance, uml is a system for writing C++ (among other things) via
>> >various diagrams and outputs compilable C++, these diagrams can be
>> >generated from existing source code - they just represent a different
>> >view on the same thing
>> >
>> >http://www.uml.org/
>>
>> While I would not reject "diagrammatic live coding" per se, I don't
>> agree with your use of "just .. a dfferent view on the same thing".
>> It is the view that makes the difference. This is one of the things
>> that become evident specially in live coding since the program
>> consists also in the programmer modifying the structure of
>> representation.
>> The traditional product-oriented view of software design does not
>> apply to experimental programming, because, as in mathematics, the
>> formalism cannot be treated as if it were completely transparent.
>
>It does make a difference, but I can't see how this is different to any
>other choice in language. Text is no more or less abstract than diagrams
>as far as the machine is concerned. This is one of the things I was
>thinking about writing betablocker.
Yes, this is an interesting question. I wonder if on such a general
level any distinction can be made.
What I always wonder about is how you express programmatic changes of
program structure (dynamic graphs) in a diagram?
like this pseudocode
sound = [a, b, c]
wait 10 s
sound [b, c, a]
--
.
Received on Sun Aug 13 2006 - 17:06:06 BST