On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:00:56 +0100, Julian Rohrhuber wrote
> >On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 23:47, alex wrote:
> >> I don't know what it's going to do in the real world.
> >> I run the code, see the results, change the code and repeat.
> >
> >You're informed by the process then, not the code itself.
> >The code is a tool to shape the process - not an end unto itself to hang
> >on the wall.
> >
> >I think it's by displaying a process as it's happening that's going to
> >make non programmer audiences understand live coding, not handing out
> >reference manuals in a nightclub so they can follow the code :)
>
> which would be a great ida btw.
>
> this is a little branch out, because alex has brought into play
> quite useful ways of clarifying. Nevertheless..
>
> As mentioned before, interactive programming is not only something
> that is done on stage. For me it primarily is something that is done
> alone, in pairs, as a way to communicate about sound and make sound
> at the same time. Thinking about it in this way, the problem here is
> not so severe, although also present (do I understand what I
> program? do the two programmers understand each other?).
This relates interestingly to extreme programming - something else I've been
involved with on and off on various projects. One of the tenets being that
programmers work in pairs, sharing one computer and writing much more
effective code than two alone put together.
> Whether it
> makes sense to lift the whole process on stage is an interesting
> discussion, but I think this needs a more detailed description of
> the circumstances and the reasons why the program is done live and
> why someone should be involved in that process somehow.
>
> One reason for me is to do it is that I think to promote
> intellectual activity as something public and cultural has become a
> political issue. The mirror of intellectual feudalism seems to be an
> aversion towards free thinking.
I played a gig this weekend and despite the performance being being lackluster
and plodding (it went quite badly overall), it never the less caused quite a
lot of questions and interest based solely on the code used and what on earth
I was doing... I think for me maybe this is more important than performing
well or making people dance (which maybe a good job ;))...
I'm thinking of handing out little fliers containing a guide to the melody
language thing at gigs in future.
> Btw. a great performer who works in
> this direction is LKJ (Linton Kwesi Johnson). The old days of the
> Smalltalk language, the great ideal it was to teach all children how
> to program, just as they are able to write and read, because it was
> considered something everyone should be able to do. Live coding can
> be work in this direction.
I like this mentality a lot - I think livecoding (and maybe a language in a
more general sense) will be only be considered useful when kids can do it too.
cheers,
dave
Received on Mon Nov 01 2004 - 15:56:43 GMT