Community standards for a LEGO kit?
richmondmathewson at gmail.com
Tue May 6 10:50:12 EDT 2014
On 06/05/14 16:26, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Of course for any such community initiative to get started it would
> need a name that doesn't include a well-established registered
> trademark like "Lego".
I suspect that Charles Buchwald lifted "Lego kit" from my use of it.
I have been using it to mean a modular system where 'code blocks'
[pre-made objects containing
code snippets that can be chained together] can be fitted together,
either 2 dimensionally as with
Scratch, or (????) 3 dimensionally.
"Lego kit" is a convenient metaphor as the vast majority of people on
both the Use-List and the Forums
are conversant with what LEGO [the trademarked toy] is and how it is used.
I don't think either Charles Buchwald, or any other correspondents
intend to impinge on the
Lego company's trademark; however, just as 'Hoover' means 'vacuum
cleaner' in Britain [ and,
as I discovered at my peril when I was in the USA, means something quite
different over there],
so, I believe 'Lego' has come to mean any sort of children's toy
consisting of components that
can be combined in a multiplicity of ways.
Any sort of modular, code block front-end for Livecode has to consist of
objects [probably groups
consisting of an image and one or more textFields] that can be combined
in a multiplicity of
combinations on the basis of a few simple underlying principles, exactly
like Lego blocks.
Obviously a community-led initiative to make some sort of a "LEGO kit"
front end for Livecode
would not be called "LEGO kit": but it might, for instance, be called
Certainly the word "kit" has a certain buzz to it.
Or "LIVE blocks" . . .
Well; just a couple of suggestions.
More information about the Use-livecode