Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 23:25 UTC, submitted by Chicken Blood
Permalink for comment 407545
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-26
The science has certainly progressed. Hardware has become exponentially more powerful. Research in programming languages and algorithms has grown by leaps and bounds. Yet the interactive and conceptual models that we use today are still fundamentally identical to those developed at Xerox PARC and introduced with the original Macintosh in 1984.
Applications are still massive walled gardens that operate on isolated documents. We're still stuck digging through dozens, hundreds or thousands of menus and submenus to access features. Data is still stored as untyped, unstructured buckets of bits that carry a single piece of metadata and are presented in a hierarchical folder structure that is the direct analog of a physical filing cabinet.
That was the paradigm that was introduced with the original Macintosh, and 26 years later, even with all the staggering advances in technology, nothing has changed.
I call that stagnation and I also find it patently absurd.