Is there any particular reason why Opus uses mainly the "archive" analogy instead of "compress" or "compact"?
I hold nothing against that choice, I am just curious about if there is any reason behind it.
Is there any particular reason why Opus uses mainly the "archive" analogy instead of "compress" or "compact"?
I hold nothing against that choice, I am just curious about if there is any reason behind it.
Not really. Why does it matter?
Some archive formats, like TAR, don't compress anything, so I guess Archive is more technically correct, but I'd be lying if I said that was the real reason. It was not something we were thinking about when we chose to use one common term instead of another common term for the same thing.
At least once the archive analogy "fails": "ZIP and Email" (default button). As "zip" is not used in other places, I guessed that maybe there was a reason for the "archive" preference.
The default "Zip and Email" menu item always creates a zip file.
Some of the other menu items work with various archive types, so using "Zip" would not make sense for them.
Maybe Files to Separate Archives is inconsistent with Zip and Email as both create zip files by default (unless their commands are edited), but I'm not sure it really matters. Both names work fine.
"Zip" was used more early on, when it was the only archive type Opus supported, but we moved most things "archive" where it made sense when that was no longer true.
"Archive and Email" would be a bit weird for those who follow the definition:
archive / ˈɑː.kaɪv / / ˈɑːr- / verb [ T ]
to store historical records or documents in an archive
in computer technology, to store electronic information that you no longer need to use regularly
But words are always evolving, so what is important is to get the message across and Opus does it, inconsistencies aside.