Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
The "resources" name is actually quite a common meme;
I believe it goes back to the original Macintosh,
I can believe that history. Still, I thought a resource is something you can exhaust;
Haven't you heard the term "renewable resource" ?-)
In the real world, yes, most resources will eventually become exhausted, but I don't think it's a necessary part of the meaning. It's just something that you exploit, or make use of.
BTW, in the game programming industry the in-vogue term at the moment seems to be "asset", which has even more inappropriate connotations. Or perhaps not, if you're a commercial entity that attaches a dollar value to all your intellectual property...
the fork should have been named "data fork"
Except that's what they call the *other* fork (equivalent to the only "fork" on systems that don't have forks).
or just "second fork".
But then the relevant Toolbox module would have to have been called the Second Fork Manager, which sounds like an API for use by dining philosophers. :-)
FWIW, Apple seem to be deprecating the use of resource forks these days, and the Resource Manager, which is a bit sad. It was *fun* programming the Mac back when it was quirky as hell and like nothing else on the planet. Frustrating at times, but fun!