[OLPC Brasil] Why call tools "activities"?
gallardj at onid.orst.edu
Thu Apr 5 22:20:50 EDT 2007
I really hate to jump on this bandwagon, but I suppose I am. Have you
guys read the HIG? 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.
On 4/5/07, Don Hopkins <dhopkins at donhopkins.com> 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".
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at laptop.org
Open Source Lab
More information about the Devel