bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu (10/05/90)
I heard some talk about people wanting the source code to Hypercard 1.x on the theory that if Apple sold out, the public could make a competitive product that would fulfil the "promise of Hypercard". All that was needed was for Bill to release the source code... Now wait a minute. Apple has had a terrible time upgrading Hypercard to 2.0. Does anyone really think that the great programming masses will be able to do better in a random, unorganized fashion? I doubt it. If we could, why not just make a clone that would be faster, smaller, use less memory, do everything we want it too, etc? We wouldn't *need* the Apple source code. So, who's first... Not to mention that this would lead to a prolifieration of hypercards (you know, like Supercard, plus, Toolbook, etc.). Some would work, some wouldn't. How would we all distribute the sucker? Etc. Etc. Etc. Whoever suggested this has fallen into the trap of not thinking realistically. Anyway, what's the need. We'll *all* have the 2.0 binary with *all* attendent XCMD's. The problem is that for most work, we'll need (or want) the neat-o stacks. Well, then, why not "roll our own". After all, making stacks and writing XCMDs is MUCH EASIER than working in Pascal/C/whatever. If it wasn't, then, what's the point? So if you are a programming jock, just write your own personal tools for hypercard. Don't shell our any dough. If you care about other people who aren't as script powerful as you are, then put your work up on the public domain. In fact, if someone got their act to get, we could organize a five disk set that had *more* tools, *more* stacks, and *more* fun (well, at least *as* much fun) as the offical Claris release. We could even sell it for a nominal fee through mail order (enough to cover our costs). As long as the binary is whole, we have all the flexability we need to create our own packages--for ourselves and for the community. *That* would be in the spirit of Hypercard. Now, let's see if there are any takers. Bijan J. Parsia P.S. I meant this mainly tongue in cheek, but if people are *really* interested, let me know. I don't have 2.0 yet, so I don't know what we'll need. I'd be more than happy to help organize, though. It would be truly beautiful.
krona@nada.kth.se (Kjell Krona) (10/16/90)
< So if you are a programming jock, just write your own personal tools for < hypercard. Don't shell our any dough. If you care about other people who < aren't as script powerful as you are, then put your work up on the public < domain. In fact, if someone got their act to get, we could organize a < five disk set that had *more* tools, *more* stacks, and *more* fun (well < at least *as* much fun) as the offical Claris release. I fully second this idea. The problem, of course, is how to organize it if it is menat to be a proper whole, which will not confuse with different layouts, et c. In the meantime, I can say that I am working on a stack which will make it very easy to use custom menus in a stack, without any need for scripting to set up the menus (although any non-standard commands will have to be written and inserted into the stack script as usual). If I can get it to work properly, this is one stack I might contribute to a public collection. -- kjell -- krona@nada.kth.se (Kjell Krona) -- Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden