Generative Art


[…] the work that is currently popular in the scene is often focused on immediate gratification, duplicating already existing work. It also often found lacking in niceties like software design, or even a more general understanding of good coding practices.

Karsten used Processing as the basis of his statements, pointing out that the procedural syntax of Processing could educate lazy coders and ultimately a dead-end for serious users of the tool.

ActionScript is actually better than Processing for all of this, and there are Free tools available for it now.

Technorati Tags:

One reply on “Processing…”

I’ll be up front, I’m a big fan of Processing, but I still can’t help thinking that “ActionScript is actually better than Processing for all of this” is a little bit throwaway. You might be right, but it would be useful if you could expand a bit…
Which aspects of computational art and design do you think Flash is better than Processing for? I’m currently involved in teaching Processing as a first language to architects and designers – are we making a mistake?
I don’t know that much about ActionScript – how does it compare to Java for speed, and for libraries, and for cross-platform compatibility? Obviously it has the edge for distribution but would you, for example, use it to implement a genetic algorithm or to manipulate 3D geometry? Are there open source IDEs available for developing actionscript? Does it handle 3D graphics, textures, pixel manipulation, sound analysis, sound generation, etc? Where should I look for more information? I’m starting to read things like this – – does that still represent the state of the art?

Comments are closed.