Comments on: instructions, limitations http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/2008/05/03/instructions-limitations/ desearch and revelopment Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:48:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: damian http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/2008/05/03/instructions-limitations/#comment-74941
Warning: mktime() expects parameter 4 to be long, string given in /home/.lynn/jgollonet/jesusgollonet.com/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 24
Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/2008/05/03/instructions-limitations/#comment-74941 hey! thanks for your interest in my Wind project, and thanks for the heads-up re the broken link for the code. the link is now fixed, you can download the source code from <a href='http://www.frey.co.nz/content/code/projects/wind_r131.tgz' rel="nofollow">http://www.frey.co.nz/content/code/projects/wind_r131.tgz</a>. you'll also need to have <a href='http://openframeworks.cc/download' rel="nofollow">openFrameworks</a> 0.04 installed. let me know if you do anything with it... cheers d hey!

thanks for your interest in my Wind project, and thanks for the heads-up re the broken link for the code. the link is now fixed, you can download the source code from http://www.frey.co.nz/content/code/projects/wind_r131.tgz. you’ll also need to have openFrameworks 0.04 installed. let me know if you do anything with it…

cheers
d

]]> by: jesus gollonet http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/2008/05/03/instructions-limitations/#comment-63216
Warning: mktime() expects parameter 4 to be long, string given in /home/.lynn/jgollonet/jesusgollonet.com/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 24
Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/2008/05/03/instructions-limitations/#comment-63216 Hey alex. Nice to hear that. I hope you aren't planning to sell to yahoo either. :) I totally agree that code is not necessarily more important than results, but I do like that, in this very case, code is given prominence. On one hand, both the instructions and the implementations are provided as language, so there is ground for interesting interactions between them. On the other hand, both are also instructions in the end, so more room to play. With the <a href="http://instructionset.org/instruction/4/" rel="nofollow">first instruction</a>, for example, I was playing with the idea that an instruction was given to me (the person), but I had to respond in code. Should I just draw a line in code and then follow it with my body? Should I implement myself in code?... I think that if the site gave more importance to results we'd have more visual/aural pieces "faking" what is asked. Not that this is bad, but I find more engaging the language interplay. But this will really depend on the instruction given, as I see from the second one... About the lack of comments, I think it also gives a more intimate experience (that was my first thought about this no-feature, but I was kind of wary about writing "intimate" in the blog :) ) Ok, so not much digested thoughts yet, but enough to let you know how the thing tickled my brain. I'm already thinking of instructions and an implementation for the second one, be sure. best! Hey alex. Nice to hear that. I hope you aren’t planning to sell to yahoo either. :)

I totally agree that code is not necessarily more important than results, but I do like that, in this very case, code is given prominence.

On one hand, both the instructions and the implementations are provided as language, so there is ground for interesting interactions between them. On the other hand, both are also instructions in the end, so more room to play.

With the first instruction, for example, I was playing with the idea that an instruction was given to me (the person), but I had to respond in code. Should I just draw a line in code and then follow it with my body? Should I implement myself in code?… I think that if the site gave more importance to results we’d have more visual/aural pieces “faking” what is asked. Not that this is bad, but I find more engaging the language interplay.

But this will really depend on the instruction given, as I see from the second one…

About the lack of comments, I think it also gives a more intimate experience (that was my first thought about this no-feature, but I was kind of wary about writing “intimate” in the blog :) )

Ok, so not much digested thoughts yet, but enough to let you know how the thing tickled my brain. I’m already thinking of instructions and an implementation for the second one, be sure.

best!

]]> by: alex http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/2008/05/03/instructions-limitations/#comment-63203
Warning: mktime() expects parameter 4 to be long, string given in /home/.lynn/jgollonet/jesusgollonet.com/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 24
Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/2008/05/03/instructions-limitations/#comment-63203 Instructionset is consciously built to be as minimal as possible, and at the moment I regard it as having a complete featureset, so you can relax :) In truth though the biggest reason why you can't upload binaries, only text, is because I didn't want to take responsibility for viruses and so on. Sourcecode is usually more transparent and therefore less likely to contain spyware... The result is that a lot of emphasis has been placed on code, and I'm happy with that. I don't think that the code is *necessarily* more important than the result, but code usually isn't visible enough. It's nice to see ideas presented in such a modifiable form too... There isn't a requirement that code is made available, but this is strongly hinted and everyone has done so, so far. I like the lack of comments a lot, I think maybe people are more likely to contribute if they know they will not be exposed to critics. Critics are almost as bad as curators in my opinion. I like your cage paraphrase -- respond to code with more code :) It would be nice to get feedback on the instructions though. Hardly anyone has responded to the most recent instruction, which I was a bit surprised by. I guess that is feedback enough, though... And the site has its first suggested instruction for next month so is already starting to run and define itself. Please add yours here! http://instructionset.org/instruction/suggest/ Instructionset is consciously built to be as minimal as possible, and at the moment I regard it as having a complete featureset, so you can relax :)

In truth though the biggest reason why you can’t upload binaries, only text, is because I didn’t want to take responsibility for viruses and so on. Sourcecode is usually more transparent and therefore less likely to contain spyware…

The result is that a lot of emphasis has been placed on code, and I’m happy with that. I don’t think that the code is *necessarily* more important than the result, but code usually isn’t visible enough. It’s nice to see ideas presented in such a modifiable form too…

There isn’t a requirement that code is made available, but this is strongly hinted and everyone has done so, so far.

I like the lack of comments a lot, I think maybe people are more likely to contribute if they know they will not be exposed to critics. Critics are almost as bad as curators in my opinion. I like your cage paraphrase — respond to code with more code :)

It would be nice to get feedback on the instructions though. Hardly anyone has responded to the most recent instruction, which I was a bit surprised by. I guess that is feedback enough, though… And the site has its first suggested instruction for next month so is already starting to run and define itself.

Please add yours here!
http://instructionset.org/instruction/suggest/

]]>