Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!emory!mephisto!psuvax1!psuvm!sas102
From: SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu (Steven A. Schrader)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: Compatibility of stacks and Hypercard 2.0
Message-ID: <90213.091703SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 1 Aug 90 13:17:03 GMT
References: <1990Jul26.192703.894@midway.uchicago.edu> <45998@brunix.UUCP>
 <1109.26b40e73@waikato.ac.nz> <43469@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 28

In article <43469@apple.Apple.COM>, bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) says:
>
>Lawrence:
>|On my hard disk, HyperCard 2.0B25 takes up 613K, versus 384K for
>|1.2.5.
>
>It's a Bad Idea to go predicting code sizes based on betas. Some betas
>contain debug code, which of course would make them bigger and slower.
>
>I wouldn't doubt HC 2 ending up bigger than version 1, though. There's
>a LOT more features in it.

Actually the size would not bother me greatly if we could compile the code so
HyperCard programs could run without HyperCard. Even if HC 2 does become only
500K, that means you have roughly 200K left for a stack (which is not an
incredible amount). If we could compile the whole thing to use only those parts
 of HyperCard we need, out 200K program might turn into 400K, but might not

need Hypercard and the Home stack (Which also gets up to 100 - 200 K).

This is one of the niggest downfalls of HyperCard--it's reliance on itself to
run. If we can compile Hypercard can go from a developing tool to a complete
app builder.
=========================================================================
         Steven A.  Schrader (SAS102 @ Psuvm.Bitnet)
         Graduate Student Consultant
         Student Support Initiative, The Center for Academic Computing
         The Pennsylvania State University