Talk:Live coding
This redirect does not make sense, it is taking a subset for the whole. See discussion on Talk:Computer_music -- 24 December 2008, User:Atoll
Ok I've resurrected it with non-music specific content and some references to support notability. There are more magazine etc references still to dig out. I deleted the TOPLAP entry in the process and redirected it here. I haven't touched the Computer_music entry yet beyond linking here, which needs editing to make it focus on the music specific aspects of live coding. Yaxu (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the live coding environments list should be in alphabetical order, but in a table so we can categorise them according to e.g. base language, interface style, license, live coding style etc. Yaxu (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ludum Dare, 48h coding competition
Creating game in 48 hours in front of thousands of viewers. Is this live coding? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYBUCYUNn3Q (Notch coding "Escape" - 20.8.2011 livestream) Handscale1 (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The video has gone but if it's the one I am thinking of, I believe uses java debugging to hotswap functions, in which case definitely. Yaxu (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Real time computing
I do not understand why someone is trying to relate live coding to real time computing in this article, without justification, reference or any reason that I can think of. I asked for an explanation in an edit comments which was ignored, so I'm doing it again here.
As I said in my edit comment, live coding does not involve direct manipulation so low latency is not at all an issue.
The RTC link goes to a subsection of the real-time computing article "Real-time and high-performance", I can't see what that has to do with live coding.
Yaxu (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've removed the real time notion from the article. Some live programmers may use real-time systems, but it is not a defining property of live programming. Pygy (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- How does live coding have much to do with live programming at all? I'm talking about "live programming" according to how Christopher Hancock defines it in his dissertation (http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/ch-phd.pdf), which is the first mention of term that was subsequently accepted by the HCI/PL communities. 131.107.0.76 (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- They have a lot to do with each other, in that live coders create and use live programming languages. Furthermore, live coding research has a history of engagement with HCI/PL communities. If "live programming" is now emerging as a distinct concept, then I'd support a new page on it, with appropriate cross-referencing. I think it would need good justification to avoid a future messy merge though.. Problematically, "coding" and "programming" are synonyms, and indeed "live coding" and "live programming" has been used interchangeably for the past ten years. Perhaps it would be clearer if the new page was called "Live programming languages"? Yaxu (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most live coding languages are not very live at all; at best they are just on-the-fly code execution like REPLs. Visual languages like Quartz Composer do provide live feedback, meaning not only does the new code execute, but previous execution of the old code is completely negated and replaced by execution of the new. --2002:7580:A952:0:0:0:7580:A952 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've had a good look at that thesis, really interesting but also very relevant to live coding, which is no stranger to dataflow programming, including in text based languages. Where do you think the disconnect lies? Yaxu (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Chris's thesis is about much more than dataflow; he provides a whole description of live programming backed by Bateson's theory of feedback loops. Its not about "relevance" but narrative. Live coding has one story about live performance and interactive music/art composition; live programming has another story about live feedback during programming (in the spirit of Bret Victor's demo). When you tell story A and then say it also encompasses story B, but you never describe story B, it becomes very confusing. I admit there is overlap in our stories, but nothing close to equivalence. I am too biased to add a live programming article myself, and I don't think the term has achieved sufficient notability yet (but hopefully this will change quickly!). --2002:7580:A952:0:0:0:7580:A952 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to describe story B, but it is not well known, I don't understand it yet, and I'm not sure if the story is that clear in the first place. Hancock doesn't really define the term in his thesis -- he only really uses it twice, outside of "live programming environments", which seems to be a general term. His use of Bateson's theory of feedback loops certainly applies to live programming environments used by live coders, which does not involve restarts, and revolves around and visualises or sonifies persistent "steady" variables. Yaxu (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Chris's thesis is about much more than dataflow; he provides a whole description of live programming backed by Bateson's theory of feedback loops. Its not about "relevance" but narrative. Live coding has one story about live performance and interactive music/art composition; live programming has another story about live feedback during programming (in the spirit of Bret Victor's demo). When you tell story A and then say it also encompasses story B, but you never describe story B, it becomes very confusing. I admit there is overlap in our stories, but nothing close to equivalence. I am too biased to add a live programming article myself, and I don't think the term has achieved sufficient notability yet (but hopefully this will change quickly!). --2002:7580:A952:0:0:0:7580:A952 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- They have a lot to do with each other, in that live coders create and use live programming languages. Furthermore, live coding research has a history of engagement with HCI/PL communities. If "live programming" is now emerging as a distinct concept, then I'd support a new page on it, with appropriate cross-referencing. I think it would need good justification to avoid a future messy merge though.. Problematically, "coding" and "programming" are synonyms, and indeed "live coding" and "live programming" has been used interchangeably for the past ten years. Perhaps it would be clearer if the new page was called "Live programming languages"? Yaxu (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- How does live coding have much to do with live programming at all? I'm talking about "live programming" according to how Christopher Hancock defines it in his dissertation (http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/ch-phd.pdf), which is the first mention of term that was subsequently accepted by the HCI/PL communities. 131.107.0.76 (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Video
It was taking up a lot of space, which I found made the article unwieldy, so I made it a thumbnail. Yaxu (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Live Notation at the Arnolfini
This might be a useful example performance
Live artists and live coders, working towards live notation
27th July 2012, Arnolfini, Bristol
Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Readability
This article is probably too dense at this point - lots of short statements with heavy referencing. It should probably have more explanatory text and figures. Yaxu (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)