>> >Where do you stand on the use of genetic programming for
>>performance? Is this
>> >under the same category as live coding - the difference being that you grow
>> >the code rather than write it?
>>
>> I would say that this is just simply a special type of algorithm. So
>> it is one extreme of live coding - doing nothing and just letting the
>> algorithm develop.
>
>Ah, I think this is the distinction, it can still be interactive - you
>can choose code that produces good results manually, while you perform,
>"navigate the geneome space" if you want to be academic about it...
what I meant is that I would try to avoid to define live coding by a
concept of interactivity that is widely criticised. Like a book is an
extremely interactive medium as you can read it in so many ways. So
I'd quote Alex on this, as he wrote:
>To say that the same piece of music is ever heard
>twice is to belittle the role of the listener who listens differently
>with each play
this means that interactivity itself cannot be the means to define live coding.
as this makes it hard then to define live coding then, I would
suggest two properties that, so to say, can be of help for
orientation (this is totally open to dicussion).
- a program which does not appear as a tool for something else
- a program that is being read and written while using it and where
the readability/changeability is relevant.
>> As long as it is all redeable...
>
>Genetic programs should be shown more, they tend to get hidden away by
>the software.
>
>This makes quite a good sound:
>
>(cos(+(cos(+(cos(+(*(- 0.929524(*(- 0.746627 0.741314)
>0.972336))(+(*(cos(*(+ 0.246092 0.244990) 0.263769))(+ 0.938006
>0.140775)) 0.685194))(+(cos(* 0.648392(+ 0.582452 0.313122)))(cos(*(+
>0.410632 0.126564) 0.194440)))))(cos(-(-(cos time)(-(+(+ 0.773449
>0.903293) 0.364460)(-(* 0.544917 0.167748) 0.263252)))(cos(* 0.046184
>time))))))(*(*(cos(cos(-(+(*(- 0.002302(* 0.361310 0.805768))
>0.276971)(- 0.945598 0.616702))(-(* 0.730980 0.238658)(+ 0.423594(+
>0.544588 0.245835))))))(+(+ 0.783156(- 0.526238 0.581044))(cos(cos(*(cos
>0.665828) 0.177759)))))(-(-(- 0.088104(cos 0.752380))(+(*(+ 0.564310
>0.202989) 0.718946)(cos 0.545804)))(*(cos(*(* 0.129965(* 0.877471
>0.799488)) time))(+(-(*(- 0.168888 0.531057) 0.691737)(* 0.790665
>0.200985)) 0.965454))))))
oh, nice. it took me quite a while to find the "time" argument..
>> >Also, what is the definition of code? Is it text only, what about
>>graph based
>> >languages? (max/msp, pd, modular synths - or even UML?) They can often be
>> >appreciated more by a non programmer audience, and look pretty to boot.
>>
>> this is a difficult question. There can be no simple answer to it and
>> I think it shows that language is a riddle.
>
>Good answer :)
>I agree.
>
>cheers,
>
>dave
>
>--
>................................. www.pawfal.org/nebogeo
--
.
Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 11:36:06 BST