Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!brunix!eilat!man
From: man@eilat.cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: Compatibility of stacks and Hypercard 2.0
Message-ID: <46359@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 1 Aug 90 14:52:43 GMT
References: <1990Jul26.192703.894@midway.uchicago.edu> <45998@brunix.UUCP> <90213.091703SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Reply-To: man@eilat.cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine)
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 19

In article <90213.091703SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu>, SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu
(Steven A. Schrader) writes:
|>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).

The only problem with this suggestion is how do you know what parts of
HyperCard will be needed and what parts won't.  For example, one of my
stacks is being used for keeping my maps and other things during fantasy
role playing (a la D&D) expeditions.  A great advantage that HyperCard
has is that I can draw on and change the maps on the fly, using the
paint tools, even though my stack is a complete "application".  Also,
some of my buttons use the painting tools as well to draw things on the screen.

	--Mark