Hey Magnus
I can see you've made a program that fullfills the requirements for this weeks miniex. Great! I know that some people (including myself) struggled a bit with implementing the for loop. But it seems that you were quite confident in your coding process. You also seem to have grasped the conveneince of the classes and objects. I think that this concept will come in handy in the upcomming miniexes as well.
The structure of your code is somewhat similar to my own code. I also used ellipses arranged in classes and objects. I actually wanted to make more circles appear as well when the other circles hit the edge of the canvas. But I couldn't make it work (maybe I'll borrow some of your code ;)).
I really like your program. I ran it before looking at your readme and I immediately thought of cells dividing over an over an over again. So you definitely succeeded in making the user think of the program as a cell spinning out of control like cancer. At first it's really pleasing to look at, but it rappidly becomes more and more chaotic. I think that's a very unique way of going about this exercise. I totally understand your phrasing of your program as (de)generating. This very much enhances the parallel you made to a cancer cell. Although your program doesn't end in death, it sure as h doesn't do your computer any good.
I think I feel the same way as you do when it comes to the question of ownership of generative programs. Without the author there wouldn't be any program. But I still acknowledge that it's a dilemma open for discussion. And I found your perspectives on the matter very interesting. Especially the part about Schiffman whom I've very much come to rely on during this semester. He's like my third lecturer. I think that you are right when you say that this field of expertise requires copying the work of others. Even professional programmers copy the work of others all the time. If this happened in the book industry it would be a different story and very illegal. So the question of authorship is definitely a grey area when it comes to programming.
I think that you have made a very cool program and that you have raised some interesting points. Good work! In order to make your program a more enhanced experience, I would suggest adding audio. The audio could follow the progression of the program in the same way as the balls do. The audio could start out as being pleasant and as the number of circles increase, the audio gets scrambled untill it becomes a white noise. This would very much enhance the feeling of chaos and discomfort caused by the program which would strengthen your idea behind the program even more.
Hey Magnus I can see you've made a program that fullfills the requirements for this weeks miniex. Great! I know that some people (including myself) struggled a bit with implementing the for loop. But it seems that you were quite confident in your coding process. You also seem to have grasped the conveneince of the classes and objects. I think that this concept will come in handy in the upcomming miniexes as well.
The structure of your code is somewhat similar to my own code. I also used ellipses arranged in classes and objects. I actually wanted to make more circles appear as well when the other circles hit the edge of the canvas. But I couldn't make it work (maybe I'll borrow some of your code ;)).
I really like your program. I ran it before looking at your readme and I immediately thought of cells dividing over an over an over again. So you definitely succeeded in making the user think of the program as a cell spinning out of control like cancer. At first it's really pleasing to look at, but it rappidly becomes more and more chaotic. I think that's a very unique way of going about this exercise. I totally understand your phrasing of your program as (de)generating. This very much enhances the parallel you made to a cancer cell. Although your program doesn't end in death, it sure as h doesn't do your computer any good.
I think I feel the same way as you do when it comes to the question of ownership of generative programs. Without the author there wouldn't be any program. But I still acknowledge that it's a dilemma open for discussion. And I found your perspectives on the matter very interesting. Especially the part about Schiffman whom I've very much come to rely on during this semester. He's like my third lecturer. I think that you are right when you say that this field of expertise requires copying the work of others. Even professional programmers copy the work of others all the time. If this happened in the book industry it would be a different story and very illegal. So the question of authorship is definitely a grey area when it comes to programming.
I think that you have made a very cool program and that you have raised some interesting points. Good work! In order to make your program a more enhanced experience, I would suggest adding audio. The audio could follow the progression of the program in the same way as the balls do. The audio could start out as being pleasant and as the number of circles increase, the audio gets scrambled untill it becomes a white noise. This would very much enhance the feeling of chaos and discomfort caused by the program which would strengthen your idea behind the program even more.
Keep up the great work!