Inventing on Principle

[Kjell]

Coding is like painting, except that you would use a telephone to give your painting instructions to a remote, neutral painter, instead of painting yourself

Exactly! I don't think many artists would prefer this approach to the conventional way of painting

[God at play]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but hopefully this gives you a better idea of the "other side" as it were, Fourth.

It comes down to the creative process. Right now there's no real way to sketch unless you are an expert programmer. It seems like many of us commenting here are not; we use programming as a means to an end.

What sketching does is take you to a state of mind that's very right-brained. It's holistic thinking, where associations are made that aren't normally made with logical thinking. Text-based language and logical thinking are left-brained, both of which are the realm of programming.

The goal then, for a more right-brained style of software development, is to not have to think about the logical side and to purely express ideas, just like sketching or free writing. One way to do this is to become an expert programmer. Another way is to use tools that do as much of the left brain stuff as possible so you don't have to.

Personally, I'm no longer afraid to learn more programming, that fear left me over a year ago. So I could become an expert programmer...but I don't want to. I know that takes time, and I'd rather spend that time designing experiences. I'd rather spend that time more directly living out my own principle.

Even so, I think there's some validity to the fear of becoming an expert programmer. It changes how you think. And that could lead to seeing certain design situations as a problem that needs to solved. That's how much of game design has worked up to this point, and if you want to go in a new direction, it's worth considering different ways to think.

[axcho]

Kjell, I also wrote some blog posts on the subject that might help you understand why we care about this.

http://evolutionlive.blogspot.com/2007/07/art-and-engineering.html
http://evolutionlive.blogspot.com/2009/03/google-is-future-of-games.html
http://evolutionlive.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-artists-want-to-make-games.html

I find that lately I've been leaning toward the direction of becoming an expert programmer (though I am far from it, now), rather than focusing on design. Which is interesting. My ultimate goal, however, is to make a tool like this such that I no longer need to become an expert programmer.

[Michaël Samyn]

There are already visual programming tools, but they're stuck in the old school code/compile style of development.

Not all! Both Quest3D and Max/MSP are real time. The Endless Forest is programmed live! (while people are playing it, in fact)

I agree that the compile loop is detrimental. But in a way visual programming is more compatible with live coding because you can't make syntax errors.

[Michaël Samyn]

I would even go as far as to say that coding is one of the reasons that vidogames have not evolved. Because coding indeed requires the linear process that Fourtwall described: first thinking, then producing. But invention happens more often by accident, by responding to errors, during a process. Especially in a new medium where everything still needs to be invented, we should not be limited by the rigid ways of thinking that coding requires.

This doesn't mean that engineers need to start working in a different way. It means different people need to get access to this medium. And I guess most engineers are unwilling to release their control and stranglehold. Luckily there are some who see the benefits. Now they just need to pay more attention to us, the actual users of these
 alternative interfaces that, sadly, only they can build at this point in time.

[ghostwheel]

I'm a coder and I'm not really an engineer. My strengths were always in the creative arts and I don't feel this has hindered me in the slightest when it comes to coding. So I'm naturally curious, what is it about coding that doesn't work for you?

This is how coding looks to me:

first and foremost before coding anything, I need to have a logical argument with myself using my spoken language - really, an inner philosopical struggle (it can take me months to resolve one little function if I am feeling particularly creative);

then I need to plan what I have decided to do and I need to visualise it. This includes drawing flow charts, connecting everything together and organising what I will be doing. You'll often see me holding my hands out in front of myself, measuring invisible objects, drawing shapes in the air. I have notebooks full of abstract drawings, too - sound familiar?

finally I need to code the damn thing in a language. Languages is a great name for them, because they're nothing but a collection of symbols used to communicate something. My girlfriend, who is a linguist, used to think me a genius for being able to code (her who speaks half a dozen languages). Then I sat her down and explained the symbols and their use as logical constructs, something she understood with her background in human languages and philosophy. Hey, what do you know - she can program. If she can, you can! [/motivational bullshit]

Sure, we can abstract programming to a higher level - not saying there is anything wrong with that. Just be aware that a higher level isn't guaranteed to change the fundamentals. Forgive me if I am making assumptions, but it sounds like a fear of working in a different medium. I don't mean that to sound as patronising as it does and I wish I could get you all in a room to explain it to you better. I don't believe programming is out of any of your reaches, especially as artists. Programmers are a diverse group (who share a common distate of bathing =D) hailing from all sorts of backgrounds and who often blossom into wildly diverging directions, from NASA engineers to Lead Artists at AAA studios.

Everything you've said sounds exactly like the typical coder/engineer.

I'll give you one very good reason why I can't code. Well, two: maths and logic. I've always had trouble with even the most simple mathematics. Game logic utterly eludes me. I tend to over-think everything which seriously impedes my ability to assemble even the most simple logical behaviours, even with visual coding. I'm not stupid or lazy (which is the usual engineer attitude toward artists). Coding, as it exists today, is beyond my grasp.

Not everything is a puzzle to be worked out with logic. Art is more than that. I'm reminded of a guy I knew at university who believed if you can put a filter on a photography that makes it look sort of like a painting, then why bother painting - it looks the same! At least as far as he was concerned.

[FourthWall]

Lots of interesting replies, thank you all for taking the time to humour my brain fart. Sorry if I can't take the time to reply to each of you individually, I have read all replies and am digesting them.

Regarding coding being a possible hinderment to the advancement of the medium. I understand that angle, you could compare it to the advances in painting technology that today frees people from having to worry about the micro-chemical level of pigments. Sure, a good painter probably still involves themself with the mixing and creating of new colours and textures, but they don't have to and, for the most part, the more technical considerations (longetivity, exposure) have a solid history/science behind them that unburdens the artist. Of course, there will always be painters whose main expression is in the exploration of new materials, but yeah... I think I understand that angle.

Coding as building blocks - definitely. Most coders never have to bother with anything other than a high-level abstraction and are themselves simply playing with a larger Lego set made of smaller pieces. The biggest advances in computer programming have been the addition of higher levels. I hold my hands up to using 'black box' librarys and APIs whenever I have to opportunity - it simply frees me up to be expressive in the code that is important to me. I almost exclusively use high level language (namely C++), too. My interest in coding, and I believe of particular interest to game design, is in Machine Learning/AI. Naturally, despite working at a high level, I have low level considerations to make (right down to bits). To use the Joyce example again, if coding is using words to express something, having an understanding and appreciation of the lower level allows me to build my own words. I still think the best work comes from many diverse people working together and I think if you really want to push the boundaries of game design, you're going to want a coder to work with.

That kind of leads me to the putting a filter over a photograph to make a painting. That's exactly how I feel, as a coder, that the gentleman in the video is approaching coding. Coding as a detriment to game design... I'm going to revisit that. Coders are a detriment to game design, coding is simply a powerful tool that is often misused (not really blaming the coders, ultimately it's an industry problem that affects all disciplines).

[Albin Bernhardsson]

It doesn't matter how high or low-level you go in programming. It's still only a collection of pre-made blocks. There's no reason a visual approach or similar could not be Turing complete.

[FourthWall]

That's quite a bold statement and I am sure you must be baiting. I'll bite, though.

It doesn't matter how high or low you go in anything, it's all just blocks. We could take painting back to particle physics if we so desired. I want to say something about the other end of the scale, but I'm not sure what. I guess there is a good point in the middle of any medium that affords great creative control without micro-managing and when you push it too far upwards you lose the essence of what the medium is - like putting a filter over a photograph and calling it a painting.

[Michaël Samyn]

Nobody knows what artists will come up with when they get tools that allow them to program. I for one am very curious! I don't see any reason for keeping them away from this wonderful technology! On the contrary!

[axcho]

I finally watched Bret Victor's talk. Awesome.

I'm not going to wait and hope for him to release his see-what-the-code-is-doing-as-you-type-it tool, even though it looks really cool. As Michael said, I think it's a step in the right direction but what we need is visual on the code side too. These examples help give my brain some more concrete ideas to work with, and hopefully something good will bubble up eventually.

[Michaël Samyn]

Those interested in Live Coding might like to have a look at Dave Griffiths' Fluxus.

[Kjell]

And those that are curious about live visual programming should take a look at ThreeNodes.js.



Still under development, but probably the easiest ( runs in your browser using javascript + WebGL ) way to have a taste of this kind of workflow.

[God at play]

Field, which I mentioned in a different thread, is the closest to Victor's solution after some recent updates:
https://vimeo.com/31458737