Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
> A hardware vendor with huge volumes (like Apple) should be able to get a CPU
> vendor to make HW that offers real protection, and at a granularity that makes
> more systems sense.

They did just that when they founded ARM Ltd (with Acorn and VTI): the
most significant change from the ARM3 to the ARM6 was a new MMU with a
more fine grained protection mechnism which was designed specially for
the Newton OS. No other system used it and though I haven't checked, I
wouldn't be surprised if this feature was eliminated from more recent
versions of ARM.

Compared to a real capability system (like the Intel iAPX432/BiiN/960XA
or the IBM AS/400) it was a rather awkward solution, but at least they
did make an effort.

Having been created under Scully, this technology did not survive Jobs'

> But the main point here is that there are no technical reasons why a child 
> should
> be restricted from making an Etoys or Scratch project and sharing it with 
> another
> child on an iPad.
> No matter what Apple says, the reasons clearly stem from strategies and 
> tactics
> of economic exclusion.
> So I agree with Max that the iPad at present is really the anti-Dynabook

They have changed their position a little. I have a "Hand Basic" on my
iPhone which is compatible with the Commodore 64 Basic. I can write and
save programs, but can't send them to another device or load new
programs from the Internet. Except I can - there are applications for
the iPhone that give you access to the filing system and let you
exchange files with a PC or Mac. But that is beyond most users, which
seems to be a good enough barrier from Apple's viewpoint.

The same thing applies to this nice native development environment for
Lua on the iPad:

You can program on the iPad/iPhone, but can't share.

-- Jecel

fonc mailing list

Reply via email to