Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!oxtrap!oxtrap!time
From: time@oxtrap.oxtrap.UUCP (Tim Endres)
Subject: Re: Problem running script with locked screen
In-Reply-To: sean@eleazar.dartmouth.edu's message of 2 Nov 89 04:36:45 GMT
Message-ID: <TIME.89Nov2171613@oxtrap.oxtrap.UUCP>
Sender: time@oxtrap.aa.ox.com (Tim Endres)
Reply-To: time@oxtrap.UUCP
Organization: Oxtrap - Ann Arbor, MI
References: <1649@gmdzi.UUCP> <8871@hoptoad.uucp> <16461@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 2 Nov 89 17:16:13

In article <16461@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> sean@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Sean P. Nolan) writes:

   Unfair. Hypercard is a revolutionary idea; Hypertalk even more so.

FACT: Hypercard is not revolutionary, Hypertalk even less so.
Look, HyperCard's concept has been around since Ted Nelson. Many years.
(Sorry, Ted) Hypertalk is Basic. Bill had an old idea with the perfect
platform. He did a decent job, but could have done better.

   Hypercard is a project of tremendous magnitude -- they
   keep track of buttons, fields, window updates, dialog boxes, message handlers,
   on and on and on. The point being that the difference of HyperTalk is you
   can just say "do this" instead of having to worry about initializing managers,
   passing stuff to DAs, updating windows, etc. 

This is true. For the "non-programmer" HyperCard gives access to
Macintosh resources that otherwise would seem untouchable.

   I don't know how coherent that was. But I don't think anyone really thought
   that Hypercard would explode like it has. It's an incredible piece of work.
   Give a little credit; don't act like they've somehow cheated us. The features
   will come.

I think the current problem with HyperCard, and the reason for all the
debate, is that HyperCard has been dubbed a programming language.
While it is, it is not a complete development environment for the
Macintosh system. Never will be. Use it for what it is good for and
the discussions go away.