I agree with much of what you say.
However, originally you said "The article says that all modern musicians make their music on the computer." The article doesn't say that, it being a ridiculous and obviously untrue statement.
While you're free to infer whatever you like into my article I ask that you at least quote it correctly.
Firstly, I am the author of the article. Secondly, the article is about using computers to make music so no, I don't go out of my way to talk about how pianos are used to make music.
If I may comment as the author of the article...
It's not that dangerous, to be honest.
I make a change, then press ctrl-x, which re-interprets the code into a dummy 'package.' If that doesn't cause compile-time errors, then it interprets the code into the live 'package.' So all I have to worry about is run-time errors, which are pretty rare.
As I'm generally running a lot of scripts at the same time, it doesn't matter if one of them drops out or goes mental. In fact, it usually sounds good. I just have to fix it, then break it again, then fix it again to make it sound intentional!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to hear more about this project - we're collecting historical references for live coding. Please contact me at alex ~at~ slab.org .
I agree with much of what you say. However, originally you said "The article says that all modern musicians make their music on the computer." The article doesn't say that, it being a ridiculous and obviously untrue statement. While you're free to infer whatever you like into my article I ask that you at least quote it correctly.
Firstly, I am the author of the article.
Secondly, the article is about using computers to make music so no, I don't go out of my way to talk about how pianos are used to make music.
Err... No, it doesn't, it says "modern-day music is often composed not at a piano but at a computer."
"music is often composed", does not mean "all music is composed".
Please be more careful.
If I may comment as the author of the article... It's not that dangerous, to be honest. I make a change, then press ctrl-x, which re-interprets the code into a dummy 'package.' If that doesn't cause compile-time errors, then it interprets the code into the live 'package.' So all I have to worry about is run-time errors, which are pretty rare. As I'm generally running a lot of scripts at the same time, it doesn't matter if one of them drops out or goes mental. In fact, it usually sounds good. I just have to fix it, then break it again, then fix it again to make it sound intentional!
http://www2.runme.org is working...