>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:40:39 +0100 (BST), Marcel Gonzalez Corso wrote
>> --- Dave Griffiths <dave_at_pawfal.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:22:26 +0100 (BST),
>> >
>> > another idea is to look at universal machines that
>> > could be programmed
>> > visually so that the description, process and the
>> > execution are the same -
>> > conway's "life" springs to mind - you could have
>> > pixels that trigger sounds,
>> > and build glider guns to fire patterns at them....
>> > you can build the basic
>> > logic gates out of glider guns and glider "eaters" I
>> > believe.
>>
>> cool info on the subject:
>> http://website.lineone.net/~edandalex/camus.htm
>>
>> Doing music with cellular automata is not new.. it
>> would be cool to see it live! (lots of colors and
>> flashes!).
>> But the programmer in stage doesn't have much control
>> of it...
>
>If it's used in a way that takes advantage of it's universal machine status -
>not just for it's random pretty colours, ie you were to build mechanisms that
>(for instance) passed gliders to and fro to create a complex system - you'd be
>programming it in a deterministic way.
>
>The reason this would be better than a written language is that the audience
>would immediately understand what you were doing - you'd see the process
>working, not the *description* of the process in an abstract
>computer language.
>
>I think this is the central point I'm badly trying to describe :)
I wonder if the idea of immediacy carries very far here. Althogh it
might be of considerate appeal (really!) to see what is "really"
going on, say in the registers of a vm, it does not necessarily mean
anything. But you are right that we are facing here the difficulty of
language which can in some cases be by introducing a visualization.
This visualization should, in my view, be considered on the same
level as the music, thus, in a certain respect, secondary to code.
--
.
Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 09:42:25 BST