>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?).
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. 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.
--
.
Received on Mon Nov 01 2004 - 15:01:14 GMT