mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (03/01/89)
Has anyone read yesterday's (2-27-89) issue of ComputerWorld? Towards the
back of the issue, they have over a half page article consisting of a critique
of HyperCard. And I thought that they only criticized Apple's pricing
policies...
Basically, they complained that HyperCard was not powerful enough to do serious
computer-based instruction work; it is suited best to simple guided tours. It
does not have the database functionality necessary to make it fall into the
database category (like search and replace capabilities, as was their example).
It does not allow you to, say, click on a word and bring up a definition card
without having to set up a button for each occurrance of the word. And so on...
But they didn't recommend any improvements. It struck me as another "It would
be nice if..." article. And I thought that they just picked on the little guys
like Ashton-Tate and Lotus...
Anyway, does anyone see these comments as valid? I agree in principle that
HyperCard could have many more features, but I think their criticisms are
a little harsh. They did argue that HyperCard's functionality can be
expanded using XCMDs, but they made it sound like that was a liability;
the program needed to have those features built-in (they probably have
4MB machines, too).
So, what does everyone see the new version 2.0 doing to calm these complaints?
What would you like to see? Send me your responses. I will summarize and
post it to the net.
-Michael Niehaus
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)shani@TAURUS.BITNET (03/02/89)
In article <5966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, mithomas@bsu-cs.BITNET writes: > they complained that HyperCard was not powerful enough to do serious computer >-based instruction work; it is suited best to simple guided tours. This is absolutly not true. HyperCard is the best tool I know for writing tutorials of any kind. (Actually that the main thing I am using it for). Just one example: I had to build a simulator for a simple microprocessor (some of you may know it - it is called FACET). I wouldn't even dare to think of using anything else to do the task, except HyperCard... It took me about 10 hours of work (Including design and scripting and some re-doing of work as I once mistakenly deleted my accumulator :-) ). Now, the only problem is speed. However, tutorials and simulators, need not be too fast, you know, and besides, I heard that now there is a compiler for HT, so I guess were soon out of the speed problem too... O.S.
shani@TAURUS.BITNET (03/10/89)
In article <5966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, mithomas@bsu-cs.BITNET writes: > > So, what does everyone see the new version 2.0 doing to calm these complaints? > What would you like to see? Send me your responses. I will summarize and > post it to the net. > > -Michael Niehaus > Hmm... now that you mention it, I do have some things I'd like to see changed FIELDS ------ I think there should be more things you can do with them. I'd like to see a horizontal scrolling bar added, and some more text management options, like aligning ,mixing fonts, and tabulating. I think that now, that HyperTalk compilers are available, HC will soon become a tool for real hypertext editing, so text management should be improved. PAINTING -------- I think that object-oriented painting, rather then bitmap would be nice. Maybe I just got used to working with objects, so I'm not sure... anyway it will sure make cards printing faster and will enable to get better results on the LaserWriter. CARD SIZE --------- How about adjustable card size? I wish I could take advantage of the bigger size of the Mac II monitor. Well, that's all I can think of right now. Generaly, like I said before, I think HyperCard is great. O.S. BTW: I am very gald to recive such fast responses from Apple. It's good to know that you realy care. However, I have a problem to response to your mail to me, as the return path seem to be wrong. could you please send me the right path for mail from you?
GFX@PSUVM.BITNET (03/10/89)
In article <990@taurus.BITNET>, shani@TAURUS.BITNET says: > >FIELDS >------ >I think there should be more things you can do with them. I'd like to see >a horizontal scrolling bar added, and some more text management options, >like aligning ,mixing fonts, and tabulating. I think that now, that HyperTalk >compilers are available, HC will soon become a tool for real hypertext editing, Do I understand that it is now possible to compile some scripts (eg. functions) written in HyperTalk (that's the name of the language used in HC, right?). Where can we get more information? How much faster does it execute? Stephane
jkm@linus.UUCP (Jonathan K. Millen) (03/10/89)
In article <990@taurus.BITNET> <shani%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: >In article <5966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, mithomas@bsu-cs.BITNET writes: >> >> So, what does everyone see the new version 2.0 doing ... Here's one thing I think is conceptually wrong in Hypercard. The highlighted state of a background button is common to all cards in the background. What I really want a background button for is to have it show up on all cards, but highlight it on some cards but not others. Background fields do this right: the field contents belong to the card. Why not buttons? Jon jkm@mitre.org
ns@cat.cmu.edu (Nicholas Spies) (03/17/89)
In article <46208@linus.UUCP> jkm@faron.UUCP (Jonathan K. Millen) writes: > >Here's one thing I think is conceptually wrong in Hypercard. >The highlighted state of a background button is common to all >cards in the background. What I really want a background button >for is to have it show up on all cards, but highlight it on >some cards but not others. Background fields do this right: >the field contents belong to the card. Why not buttons? > It can also be argued that the contents of background fields should belong to the fields rather than each card: this would make building an index much less of a chore than now. I agree that the metaphor of background fields and buttons is not symmetrical, and this has been noted by several people here a while ago and should be corrected by adding: (1) background fields whose text and scroll does not change from card to card (2) background buttons whose state does change from card to card ...while keeping the present types. -- Nicholas Spies ns@cat.cmu.edu.arpa Center for Design of Educational Computing Carnegie Mellon University --
baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) (03/18/89)
[] >In article <4508@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ns@cat.cmu.edu (Nicholas Spies) writes: >It can also be argued that the contents of background fields should belong >to the fields rather than each card: this would make building an index much >less of a chore than now. I agree that the metaphor of background fields and >buttons is not symmetrical, and this has been noted by several people here >a while ago and should be corrected by adding: >(1) background fields whose text and scroll does not change from card to card >(2) background buttons whose state does change from card to card >...while keeping the present types. Supercard has added a background field type called "common", which does just that. It will make some of my stacks immensely easier to write. -- baum@apple.com (408)974-3385 {decwrl,hplabs}!amdahl!apple!baum
hsd@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Harry S. Delugach) (03/18/89)
In article <990@taurus.BITNET> <shani%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: > >Hmm... now that you mention it, I do have some things I'd like to see changed > >PAINTING >-------- >I think that object-oriented painting, rather then bitmap would be nice. >Maybe I just got used to working with objects, so I'm not sure... anyway >it will sure make cards printing faster and will enable to get better >results on the LaserWriter. If HyperCard had object-oriented painting, I would be using it for all kinds of graphics applications that are in my head right now, but it doesn't, so I can't. I would like to see graphic objects accessible from HyperTalk. I would even like to see it handle two different paint layers, one for PICTs and one for PNTGs like SuperPaint. In fact, how about an arbitrary number of layers like in MacDrawII, only handle PNTGs too, all controllable from HyperTalk. I suspect that to supply all of this would double or triple the already-large memory requirements for HyperCard. Of course, having just gotten an upgrade to 2.5Meg, why should I care :-) ? -- Harry S. Delugach Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 U.S.A. INTERNET: hsd@cs.virginia.edu BITNET: hsd2x@virginia UUCP: ..!uunet!virginia!uvacs!hsd CIS: 72727,2363