Bill Sofer (12/08/90)
I want to stimulate a discussion of the merits of HyperCard vs SuperCard. For
some time now, I've been using SuperCard as a developmental environment for the
creation of educational software. Prior to that, I had used HyperCard 1.2 to
create a fairly large tutorial stack. To my mind, SuperCard 1.5 has several
advantages over HC 1.2 (and 2.0). Here's a brief list of some pros and cons...
PROS
SuperCard makes use of colors - 256 different ones in text and graphics -
with good control over multiple color palettes.
SC can use draw graphics (and it has the capability of painting as well),
which makes, among other things, for smaller files. It can also import draw
objects from drawing type programs.
SC is very adept at animation. It has several different ways of moving
objects around the screen under program control. It can also import PICS
animations from other programs.
SC uses a windows metaphor, and is capable of displaying seven different
window types. A single project can have many different windows up at once. Each
window can have hundreds of cards in it. Each window can be very large. The
result is a program that looks much more Mac-ish than a HyperCard one.
CONS
In my view, the biggest drawback to SuperCard stems from the fact that not
everyone has (or can easily obtain) a copy of the application - as is the case
with HC. To counter that, the creators of the program have tacked on the
ability to build a double-clickable stand alone which can be run independently
of the SuperCard application. But the stand alones are very large - on the
order of 300 kbytes are added to whatever your stack size is - and can easily
overrun the size of an 800 Kbyte disc. On the pro side, you can create an icon
of your choice for the program, rather than a generic one (or one like HC
provides).
The program probably has other advantages and disadvantages relative to HC, but
I would like to hear other opinions.
** I have no connection, financial or otherwise, with the makers of SuperCard
**
Bill Soferkraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) (12/08/90)
>a discussion of the merits of HyperCard vs SuperCard.
I use SuperCard for courseware development as well. The three things I
absolutely needed that HC didn't have were:
(1) large windows
(2) PICT graphics
(3) polygon buttons
I've since found out that I could have done a lot with XCMD's, but I was a
scripting neophyte when I started the whole project. Having the support
built-in made a lot of things possible early on.
The biggest cons I see in SuperCard are (1) it is slow, (2) it is a memory
hog. In my mind, what I am doing should not take more than about 2MB, but
SC insists on requiring at least 4.
The thing I like is that you get the benefits of HyperCard (easily changed
scripts, sort-of-object-oriented development, easy interfaces to videodisc
players, etc.) but you have more control over the user interface. Pop-up
menus, windows, complete control over the menu bar, etc.
Therein lies my question for the c.s.m.h crowd: does HyperCard 2.0 let you
make anything that could pass for an application? Or does it still look
like HyperCard in the end? Like, can I make my own "About..." menu
option, and take out HyperCard's FILE menu entirely? You may be able to
tell that I haven't looked into it too much, as SC makes it all very easy.
Perhaps it's just that HyperCard never did come with a good scripting
manual and I'm too cheap to buy things like that after the fact.
Kraig Eno, kraig@biostr.washington.edu
"Problems generate new knowledge." -- M. Usuilev@rsdps.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian S. Lev) (12/08/90)
In article <12593@milton.u.washington.edu>, kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) writes... >>a discussion of the merits of HyperCard vs SuperCard. > >I use SuperCard for courseware development as well. The three things I >absolutely needed that HC didn't have were: > (1) large windows > (2) PICT graphics > (3) polygon buttons > >I've since found out that I could have done a lot with XCMD's, but I was a >scripting neophyte when I started the whole project. Having the support >built-in made a lot of things possible early on. [some text deleted] >Therein lies my question for the c.s.m.h crowd: does HyperCard 2.0 let you >make anything that could pass for an application? Or does it still look >like HyperCard in the end? Wellllll.... that's kind of the purpose of the standardized Mac user inter- face, isn't it? ;-) > Like, can I make my own "About..." menu option, and take out HyperCard's FILE > menu entirely? As far as I know, you can't permanently hide FILE in a stack (you can hide the menubar, but "recovering" it is a trivial command-spacebar), but I've seen a XCMD for putting your own "About..." entry under the Apple menu. For that matter, there are XCMDs (transparent to call in Hypertalk once installed in your stack) that let you choose how to display/hide PICT images (DispPict is the one I'm most familiar with, there are several), and the PolyButtons XCMD (which I've just begun to play with) seems to be a pretty darn good method of creating all kinds of polygonal buttons. In essence, you hit it on the head -- there are (at least now) enough XCMDs and XFCNs out there to do almost everything in HC you can do in SC (as I understand it, never having used SC). HC2 even has ways of displaying color pictures (in a separate window), albeit only semi-functionally -- but that's the only area *I* (please note again my lack of SC experience...) am sure of a real difference in capability between the two. > You may be able to tell that I haven't looked into it too much, as SC makes > it all very easy. That sounds a lot like a good reason to use a package! > Perhaps it's just that HyperCard never did come with a good scripting manual > and I'm too cheap to buy things like that after the fact. I don't know about your buying habits (insert smiley here), but amen to that first statement! Then again, I'm too cheap to buy another program (SC) when something very similar came along with the Mac "for free"!!! :-) -- Brian +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Brian Lev/STX (301)286-9514 (FTS)888-9514 | | NASA Goddard Space Flight Center DECnet: SDCDCL::LEV (6153::LEV) | | Advanced Data Flow Technology Office TCP/IP: lev@dftnic.gsfc.nasa.gov | | Code 930.4 BITNET: LEV@DFTBIT | | Greenbelt, MD 20771 TELENET: [BLEV/GSFCMAIL] | | X.400 Address: (C:USA,ADMD:TELEMAIL,PRMD:GSFC,O:GSFCMAIL,UN:BLEV) | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "The ability of a network to knit together the members of a sprawling | | community has proved to be the most powerful way of fostering scienti- | | fic advancement yet discovered." -- Peter Denning | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DISCLAIMER: THESE STATEMENTS ARE MY OWN AND *NOT* NASA'S OR STX'S! | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jk3t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan King) (12/10/90)
kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) writes: > I use SuperCard for courseware development as well. The three things I > absolutely needed that HC didn't have were: > (1) large windows > (2) PICT graphics > (3) polygon buttons > > I've since found out that I could have done a lot with XCMD's, but I was a > scripting neophyte when I started the whole project. Having the support > built-in made a lot of things possible early on. HC 2.0 now provides for larger (and smaller) card sizes, and allows you to show PICT graphics easily with the built-in Pictures XCMD, but does not allow you to have Mac Draw-like objects appearing on cards. Greg Anderson has written a really neat XCMD/XFCN combo that allows the creation, editing, and use of polygon button. Called "Polybuttons", it is available on Sumex and probably at other archives near you. > The biggest cons I see in SuperCard are (1) it is slow, (2) it is a memory > hog. In my mind, what I am doing should not take more than about 2MB, but > SC insists on requiring at least 4. HC 2.0 would really like at least 2 MB, too, but most HyperTalk commands now run much faster with the new incremental compiler. > The thing I like is that you get the benefits of HyperCard (easily changed > scripts, sort-of-object-oriented development, easy interfaces to videodisc > players, etc.) but you have more control over the user interface. Pop-up > menus, windows, complete control over the menu bar, etc. HC 2.0 now allows you to have multiple stacks open, and you could always "fake" pop-up windows (or use one of several XCMDs. HC 2.0 now also allows you virtually complete control over the menubar. > Therein lies my question for the c.s.m.h crowd: does HyperCard 2.0 let you > make anything that could pass for an application? Stacks now can look much, much, more like "normal" applications, but you still need HyperCard around to run them. > Or does it still look like HyperCard in the end? Don't know that I understand what you're saying here. > Like, can I make my own "About..." menu > option, and take out HyperCard's FILE menu entirely? Yes, you can now do both of these things in HyperTalk. To create your own "About" menu item, all you would would have to do is create a new menu based on the Apple menu, replace the "About" item, delete the normal Hypercard Apple menu, and install your replacement. You can also take out HyperCard's FILE menu entirely. One slight complication is that the command key equivalents for HyperCard's menu items will still work unless you filter them out, as will do menu messages. > You may be able to > tell that I haven't looked into it too much, as SC makes it all very easy. > Perhaps it's just that HyperCard never did come with a good scripting > manual and I'm too cheap to buy things like that after the fact. I certainly think your last comment is on target. Apparently the official Claris upgrade to HC 2.0 will include a complete scripting manual. (I say apparently because I haven't seen one yet, but I am hopeful that it will really cool.) > Kraig Eno, kraig@biostr.washington.edu > "Problems generate new knowledge." -- M. Usui jking
guzdial@zug.csmil.umich.edu (Mark Guzdial) (12/11/90)
I use SuperCard instead of HyperCard for two reasons: (1) because I need
tighter control of what happens when using button and field tools and
when errors occur, and (2) because I need really large windows.
HyperCard 2.0 does let me remove the standard menus and put up my own,
but it doesn't let me redefine what happens when someone (for example)
double-clicks on a button in the button tool. I'm working on creating
new kinds of programming environments for education contexts. I need
to be able to bring up my own info dialogs, my own editing
environment, etc. With the new XCMD interface, some of this is supposed to be
possible, but I can't seem to get enough information on how to make it
work to try it.
SuperCard lets me catch double-clicks with pointer tools, catch
errors ("On ScriptError") to write my own debugger, and generally
allows me to create whatever environment I choose.
For some other applications, we needed some really long windows (e.g.,
3000 pixels), but HyperCard 2.0 only allows up to 1800x1800 pixel
windows, for unknown reasons.
To cope with the SuperCard speed problem, I've been using Heizer
Software's Compile-It! for creating XCMDs and XFCNs out of scripts.
The speed-up in my utility functions has been tremendous.
Mark Guzdial
University of Michiganlaf@mbunix.mitre.org (12/12/90)
One thing that I haven't seen pointed out yet: Supercard does not run under A/UX, while Hypercard does. I still can't believe that hypercard doesn't support color, though. Lee Fyock laf@mbunix.mitre.org
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (12/13/90)
In article <127251@linus.mitre.org>, laf@mbunix.mitre.org writes... [on-going thread discussing platform independence for HyperCard] >One thing that I haven't seen pointed out yet: >Supercard does not run under A/UX, while Hypercard does. >I still can't believe that hypercard doesn't support >color, though. Does anyone else see the contradiction here? Several net.people request (for some it was closer to 'demand') that a HyperCard stacks should run on many platforms ... then also complain about the lack of direct color support in HyperCard 2.0. My question: doesn't my B&W Mac SE/30 count as a platform to be supported? I want my stacks to be accessible to those on other platforms as badly as the NeXT guy, but I'd like to be able to run them myself, too.... Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) Bill Johnston; 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
laf@mbunix.mitre.org (12/13/90)
In article <38938@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >In article <127251@linus.mitre.org>, laf@mbunix.mitre.org writes... >[on-going thread discussing platform independence for HyperCard] > >>One thing that I haven't seen pointed out yet: >>Supercard does not run under A/UX, while Hypercard does. >>I still can't believe that hypercard doesn't support >>color, though. > >Does anyone else see the contradiction here? Several net.people >request (for some it was closer to 'demand') that a HyperCard >stacks should run on many platforms ... then also complain about >the lack of direct color support in HyperCard 2.0. > >My question: doesn't my B&W Mac SE/30 count as a platform to be >supported? I want my stacks to be accessible to those on other >platforms as badly as the NeXT guy, but I'd like to be able to >run them myself, too.... > >Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) >Bill Johnston; 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949 I said "support", not "need". I have a Plus at home, so I enjoy running black-and-white stacks as much as anyone :-). I'm saying that: 1) If Silicon Beach Software can write a Hypercard look-alike that supports color, then Apple should (read that "has the resources to", not "must because I morally demand it") be able to match that capability. 2) Color has been around since 1987. Here we are three years later, and the Finder still doesn't handle color icons and Hypercard doesn't support color. Disclaimer: Don't get me wrong, the mac is the best thing since the sliced wheel. I'm just having trouble comprehending Apple's direction. Please email me any flames! Lee Fyock laf@mbunix.mitre.org