On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 16:50, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> 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 agree that the code is a tool to shape the process, but it's also true
that the process is a tool to shape the code. I don't like to separate
the code and the process, the code is the process in written form.
> 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 :)
I agree with that. But I'd also say that they might also understand it
just by hearing the process work without visualisations.
On the other hand I still think the audience should be allowed to
observe what the performer is doing, if they are performing in front of
them. I feel a discussion about revealing aspects of a running process
visually is separate from this.
> I'll shut up now, I'm getting boring :)
No you're not, please continue :)
alex
Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 09:37:41 BST