clubmac@runx.ips.oz (Macintosh Users Group) (02/18/88)
Well, I buckled under and tried to use Hypercard for a semi-useful project
which would (I thought) have made a nice piece of stackware; unfortunately
I ran up against the singular most STUPID piece of programming that I have
seen in ANY computer syste,
Try 'put one' in the message box. It outputs '1'. Cute, Bill, real cute.
Try 'put "one"'. It outputs 'one'. OK, we have a workaround.
Now, create a new card and name it 'card one'. Then try
'go to card "card one"' in the message box. For me, it asks me (using
SFGetFile dialog) to find "card 1". Crap, Bill, real crap.
Anyone got any clues on how I convince HyperCard to FORGET this "real
useful feature (converting one to 1, nine to 9, etc). Otherwise, into the
trash can goes the whole shebang, Hypercard and all.
Jeff Laing
---
(posted on behalf of a Club Mac member)
Jason Haines, President
Club Mac Macintosh Users Group, Sydney, Australia
Phone Home: +61-2-73-4444
Snail: Box 213, Holme Building, Sydney University, NSW, 2006, Australia
ACSnet: clubmac@runx.ips.oz ARPA: clubmac%runx.ips.oz@uunet.uu.net
UUCP:{enea,hplabs,mcvax,prlb2,uunet,ubc-vision,ukc}!munnari!runx.ips.oz!clubmacwinkler@apple.UUCP (Dan Winkler) (02/22/88)
The symbols one through ten are constants like pi. I provided them so you could use a more English-like style if you wanted, such as: if it is five then add three to second item of field two If you mean the literals "one" through "ten", use quotes. For example: go card "one" -- will go to a card named "one" go card one -- will go to card number 1
mab@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mark Bodenstein) (02/22/88)
In article <7451@apple.UUCP> winkler@apple.UUCP (Dan Winkler) writes: > ... > go card one -- will go to card number 1 But, go card "1" -- will go to card number 1, -- even if there is a card named "1" This ambiguity is unfortunate and unnecessary. The syntax could have been go card number <number> or go card num <number> for this variation on the go command, reserving go card <name> for going to a card based on its name. Was there a reason for this, or was it an oversight? In general, I think HyperCard is a great idea, and that HyperTalk has some good design ideas and design choices built into it. I have found actually working with it to be disappointing, though. There are too many "gotchas", and there are too many things that should be easy to do but aren't. It gives the impression of being a good draft of a language (and similarly HyperCard as a product), but not there yet. If I got a vote, I would vote for a future version of HyperCard fixing all of these design problems, even if previously written stacks no longer worked. I think that this is necessary if HyperCard is to become the tool that it can and should be. I further think it is early enough in the product life to take such a step, and will be for some time yet. -- Mark Bodenstein {ihnp4,rochester}!cornell!batcomputer!mab mab@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu
paul@mit-caf.UUCP (Paul Meyer) (02/23/88)
In article <3809@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> mab@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Mark Bodenstein) writes: > >In general, I think HyperCard is a great idea, and that HyperTalk has some >good design ideas and design choices built into it. I have found actually >working with it to be disappointing, though. There are too many "gotchas", >and there are too many things that should be easy to do but aren't. It gives >the impression of being a good draft of a language (and similarly HyperCard >as a product), but not there yet. > >If I got a vote, I would vote for a future version of HyperCard fixing all of >these design problems, even if previously written stacks no longer worked. I >think that this is necessary if HyperCard is to become the tool that it can >and should be. I further think it is early enough in the product life to take >such a step, and will be for some time yet. Maybe it would be possible to give a new a new file type to stacks built in the fixed version of hypercard. Old stacks would be recognized as such and the old rules used, but this would allow new stacks to have unlimited modifications to the "disliked features" (bugs) of Hypercard Classic. I do have to agree, though, that while hypercard is a great product, there are many subtle bug/features that pop up when you least expect them (like the ambiguity in the 1,"1",one,"one" issue) and many things that should be easier (like doing something with a "found" object from a script, and sticky buttons.) On the other hand, hypercard has allowed my to build tailor made applications that would have not happened without it. Paul Meyer Microsystems Technology Laboratory MIT
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (03/01/88)
I just spent my first long weekend with HyperTalk. What a frustrating language! I warmed to concepts like calling a default variable 'it', but just when I relied on the cute synonyms and English-like features, it let me down. What I want is a clear specification of the language syntax (which I don't have in either Goodman or APDA's publication). What's wrong with this sentence: wait for one second Hypertalk insists that it be wait for one seconds Give me a break. Alastair Dallas