On 2/26/12 10:29 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2012-02-25 à 14:29:00, Phil Stone a écrit :
IMO, Pd *approaches* this potential of live-coding, but isn't there
yet. The edit/play dichotomy,
The Edit/Play modes are there just to allow more different mouse
commands. It's not really a feature of the engine, it's just for
switching between two sets of mouse behaviours in the GUI, because
there are not enough buttons.
That's a good point, but the other problem I mentioned -- audio dropouts
during editing, especially if the dsp graph needs recompiling -- is
still a deal breaker for live *performance* coding (unless one embraces
the glitches). Now, if by 'live', one just means highly interactive,
I'll grant Pd that. That's more what I'm concerned with anyway -- a
rapid connection between idea and execution, not necessarily doing
programming in front of an audience.
I also like programming in "word" languages,
For what I presume you call a non-word language, Pd has quite a large
vocabulary of words in it.
I'm pretty sure you, and most readers of this list, understand the
distinction I am making between graphics-dominated and text-dominated
programming environments. Perhaps the scare quotes should be a tip that
I'm not speaking in exactitudes at that moment. :-)
Don't think that your points about the liveness of Pd are lost on me,
though. I've been thinking about it a great deal since watching that
video yesterday, and realized the very interactiveness the guy in the
video was bragging about is something we take for granted. Number boxes
change values instantly! Wow!
I was excited, however, by the capability of changing underlying code by
manipulating the product. Pd even nudges into that territory with its
bastard son dynamic patching, but it's not particularly intuitive.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
