That’s what *allows* folks to move lower without pain. Without even realizing it, sometimes… and on-demand versus forcing them to know every detail of their GPU driver.

Does that make sense? I’m not saying that the artists are becoming more 1337, or that anyone should. Just that more power is being made available while keeping semantics relatively constant. It actually sounds like you and I have the same view.

I know that plenty of folks have been hacking on hardware and software forever. I’m not implying that anything is new here, except that a particular group (those who originated as web-based artists) are moving into tech that many of them have always considered off limits, or difficult, or ugly (such as C++), and they’re able to incorporate those tools because such great frameworks have emerged that allow them to get started quickly and take rough ideas to the CPU/GPU faster than if they were opening a text editor.

Like I said – nothing scandalous or exclusive.

A non-emotional (for some reason discussions about frameworks always seem to spark emotion and defensiveness in people) example is Grand Central Dispatch in Snow Leopard.

Though OpenCL has been around for a while, many graphics/media programmers have avoided or ignored it. For those working in Objective-C and Cocoa, though, Grand Central Dispatch suddenly makes OpenCL not just accessible but semantically relevant. I think folks will start to naturally think in terms of multicore without having to really worry about thread management, hardware disparity, etc.

Note that I am approaching this from a UX angle. Solving the UX of the digital artist means giving them more hardcore tools without making them suffer. That’s what frameworks can provide. A diverse set of frameworks means that a particular artist can find the DSL that fits his/her thought process the best.

Let me reiterate: the “hardcore” label wasn’t being applied to the person under the banner of “lower-level = more hardcore = more capable = more worthy” or whatever may have come across.

I’m saying that the tools are getting more hardcore – faster, lower-level, more complex – while keeping the DSL higher and more assistive.

A good analogy is OS X. Over the years, we’ve had an almost constant user experience but the kernel and hardware drivers have gotten far more hardcore. Laptops with 8 cores? Jeez. Thankfully GCD means we can take advantage of them without really caring that we’re taking advantage of them.

Simple, really. Sorry for any confusion. Perhaps my big note box at the top giving context should have been bolder, or I should have explained what Adobe is up to. I hope it’s more clear now :)

I still don’t agree with your argument though. If we were controlling logic gates manually, wouldn’t that be more hardcore, not less hardcore?

My point was that computer art has been around since computing, and all computer languages have been turned to the purpose of art. Artists were using C++ before openframeworks came along. For them openframeworks makes things less complex, by tying together diverse libraries into a coherent whole. This is a good thing.

I’m definitely not one of the artists I’m referencing. I know a lot of the particular folks quite well, but my programming work is more about creating the tools than using them for art. I fail at art. :)

I agree with everything you said, though. Where Flash is concerned, please keep in mind the purpose of this article: the Adobe XD site. I wanted to use Flash as a starting point because, programmatically, it *is* the starting point for that audience!

Without getting too specific with the names (other than mentioning Robert and Erik), I was really talking about a certain set of folks that followed this path, expanding their toolsets along the way.

I also agree that a language is more than a tool. It impacts the work deeply. That’s where frameworks can be powerful: like languages, they influence the ideas, the implementation, and the elements of surprise (both good and bad). Instead of creating entirely new languages for people aesthetically displeased by, say, “raw” C++, frameworks can act as a sort of secondary layer to those languages, giving the ability to introduce new semantics.

Think of the simple DSL in Processing: draw(), line(), etc. Those semantics probably influence the art as much as the power of Java and OpenGL.

When an artist finds semantics that fit his or her thought, I believe the framework kind of disappears and lets them more efficiently transfer thought to code. When languages or frameworks get in the way – through bugs/gotchas, or simply through semantics, the framework *can* become a detriment.

Andrew Bell, the lead visual architect at The Barbarian Group, has a sick amount of talent. He also enjoys coding in C++ exclusively, without much in the way of frameworks (other than STL and Boost). His brain just works best that way.

Robert wants his tools to help him, but stay out of the way. The syntax in Processing has become so familiar to him that it’s invisible. The best way to give him new, more powerful tools is to try to create a DSL that fits his brain while introducing new complexity under the DSL.

The complexity is there, when he wants to dig in – but for many things he doesn’t have to.

This is true, I think with all frameworks. Hell, it’s true with macros.

It’s really not a shocking or contentious article, and the central theme (that these new artist-specific frameworks let folks dig in deeper, as needed, than they otherwise would) applies to frameworks and libraries in all languages.

In fact, it applies to all languages. Otherwise we’d be controlling gates manually.

That said I agree that processing and openframeworks are fantastic and it’s great that language environments made for/by artists are around now.

That said I agree that processing and openframeworks are fantastic and it's great that language environments made for/by artists are around now.