Hey Folks, I really hate to jump on this bandwagon, but I suppose I am. Have you guys read the HIG[1]? They give a great explanation of what the activity metaphor is suppose to represent. Based on this, I feel that 'application' or 'program' doesn't portray the image that OLPC wants to with activities. I think that the word 'activity' has been chosen specifically, and it serves its purpose perfectly.
Thanks! [1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Human_Interface_Guidelines/Activities/Activity_Bundles#Naming_Activities On 4/5/07, Don Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Albert Cahalan wrote: > > Componentizing the world is a failed dream. > I strongly disagree with that. > > Just because C++ is totally fucked, CORBA is a sick joke, and Apple gave > up on HyperCard and OpenDoc and ScriptX, and regressed to using the > quaint circa-1989 technology of NeXT Step and Objective C, doesn't mean > components are a failure -- it just means that Apple and other companies > have failed to deliver on their own promises. Other important component > based systems like Smalltalk, Python, SWIG, Java, Eclipse, web services, > ReST, and even Microsoft Window's OLE/ActiveX are quite successful. > > Python and Sugar is all about modularization and componentization, and > if don't think that's a worthy goal, or believe it's destine for > failure, then you should be working on something else more monolithic, > like a big "application". > > -Don > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > -- Justin Gallardo Open Source Lab OLPC/Helix Developer _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
