At 23:31 Uhr +0100 16.08.2005, alex wrote:
>On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 11:11 +0100, dave griffiths wrote:
>> I agree completely, the ridiculousness of the situation makes livecoding
>> fun. We're using languages designed for slow considered construction of
>> programs that extract information from databases (apparently nearly all
>> programming boils down to that task). It's a battle - too right! :)
>
>I don't doubt there is massive room for improvement in livecoding
>languages but I don't think the fault is all in the language. There are
>languages designed for big maintainable applications, and there are
>languages designed for quick hacks. I happen to use one designed for
>quick hacks :) It seems quite suitable for me.
>
>I think the problem is that we are communicating in rich, usually
>textual languages and that richness comes with necessary overhead.
>
>Although saying that it strikes me that body language is also very rich
>and doesn't come with this overhead. But then body language is only
>rich when it is subconscious, once you try to control it, it becomes
>shallow and simplistic.
Isn't it always this weird intermediate, conflicting area between
perception and unconscious that is so fascinating?
There is considerable research going on in this field which shows
that body language, just as spoken language (and I would say language
necessarily) has to deal with exactly this type of 'overhead'. The
main reason is the fact that communication has to do with planning
ahead. This (often unconcious) planfulness works exactly because it
can fail in so many ways (we typically react by so called 'repairs').
>In that case our problem is that we are using 'higher' brain functions.
>
>> you're talking extreme livecoding: http://www.pairprogramming.com/
>> we should try sharing computers some time.
>Yes!
>
>> It's like the two sides of my brain taking turns. I also tend to write
>> some code in a forward thinking planned way, then go back over it
>> changing numbers in a totally absent minded experimental way - I think
>> you actually have a way of doing this automatically, don't you alex?
>...
>And of course you can write some code that makes music that develops
>over time by itself. An interesting area of livecoding research I
>think... Writing something live that happens in five minutes.
>At 23:31 Uhr +0100 16.08.2005, alex wrote:
>> It's like the two sides of my brain taking turns. I also tend to write
>> some code in a forward thinking planned way, then go back over it
>> changing numbers in a totally absent minded experimental way - I think
>> you actually have a way of doing this automatically, don't you alex?
>
For me this is the most interesting thing about live coding. I think
every program is a limitation, as it is a kind of plan. This is why
it works. To be able to change plans while they are already in the
process of realisation is a feature that we have in dynamic
programming languages. But I think the question how this is best
achieved is not trivial (our ICMC paper is about this, so maybe we
can discuss these issues there a bit as well).
What makes interactivity? How would you define it, considering that
action always impiles a certain planfulness or expectation?
--
.
Received on Wed Aug 17 2005 - 20:47:22 BST