This discussion is degenerating into "whom should we choose to design
the metatalk language since Metacard does such a lousy job". This idea
that the language should be easily understood (with no effort at all) by
"the average person" aka "us" is total crap. The average person uses a
computer for email and shopping (if at all) not programing, those who
"need" to develop applications even at a minimal level are not exactly
average since they acquire knowledge the average person does not even
dream about. Also this "us" thing is most inaccurate: Scott Rossi knows
a lot more about multimedia/graphics then I do, I probably know more
about other things then he does (his technical vocabulary is different
than mine). The only "us" here is that we both use Metacard, not
necessarily the same set of features.
I followed similar discussions on the xTalk list and there are as many
opinions as members on the list - no one is "average".
Ultimately users (developers) will have to learn to associate a name
with a concept even if it "doesn't sound English" enough for them for
the simple reason that English language is struggling itself to keep up
with zillion new concepts and ideas that need new names every day.
Funny thing is that I never heard this sort of complains about metatalk
from the international crowd (well, with one exception;-), I guess they
don't believe in the lowest common denominator as standard for the
vocabulary of a language.
Andu
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
