10 ms·

Photoshop 1.0 Source Code

192 points by ConstantineXVI 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago
The first version of Photoshop was written in Pascal?!?
- Someone 14y ago
  Pascal was the Mac OS programming language. The API had data types Str255 (Pascal string, maximum 255 character, in a 256-byte memory block), Str15 (same, max 15 characters, in a 16 byte block) and the like, and many of the higher-level calls used Pascl calling conventions (lower-level calls used a mish-mash of conventions for speed. For example, low-level file calls used a register to pass pointers to parameter blocks. In the rather unlikely case you want to know, read http://filibeto.org/unix/macos/lib/dev/documentation/Carbon/Reference/Mixed_Mode_Manager/Mixed_Mode_Manager.pdf http://filibeto.org/unix/macos/lib/dev/documentation/Carbon/..., which details how you (sort of) transparently could call 68K code from PPC code and vice versa. The section "Special Case Calling Conventions" lists all special cases. You get such cases as "Parameters are passed to the routine in registers A3 and D7, and output is returned in registers D2, D3, and D4".
  - lobster_johnson 14y ago
    Amazingly this looks a lot like Borland's Turbo Pascal (later Borland Pascal, later Borland Delphi, then Embaradero something), which had lots of OO extensions over the years, designed by Andreas Hejlsberg (who went on to make C#). In the golden age of Delphi, the language was pretty on par with today's Objective-C: Classes, late binding, properties, reference counting, modern strings, etc. I wonder how much influence there was between the two.
    - pjmlp 14y ago
      Turbo Pascal 5.5 objects were based in Object Pascal done by Apple.
      - lobster_johnson 14y ago
        Makes sense. As far as I can see, it was not directly copied from the Mac dialect; there are some differences, like how the Mac code requires methods in the declaration to be declared fully qualified with the full class name ("PROCEDURE TEraseAll.IEraseAll (view: TImageView);").
  - specialist 14y ago
    Not to be pedantic, but because I think it's interesting: The Lisa's OS was written in Pascal. http://www.cs.oberlin.edu/~jwalker/lisa-legacy/ http://www.cs.oberlin.edu/~jwalker/lisa-legacy/ "The majority of Lisa programs were written in the Pascal language by Apple with a few programs written in 68000 assembly language. To give an idea of the size of this effort the Lisa operating system was written in around 90,000 lines of Pascal and each Lisa program (eg LisaWrite) contained somewhere around 50,000 lines each." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)#H... Like others in this thread, I learned Pascal early on and was befuddled by C for a long time. I wrote some Pascal on my Apple //e, played with Lisa (had access thru work), completely missed the Mac boat, cut my teeth on TurboPascal. Gods, I loved Borland.
- vor_ 14y ago
  Mac programming in that era was a mix of assembly and Pascal.
- leejoramo 14y ago
  As other's note: Assembly and Pascal were the original system languages for the Macintosh. As I recall, C was not used until a year or two after the launch of the Mac when Lightspeed C was released. (Lightspeed was later renamed Think C) Apple did not use C heavily until the OS was re-written in C++ in System 7 in 1991
  - saddino 14y ago
    Which spawned Apple's MPW IDE and their MacApp C++ framework, which ultimately gave way to Metrowerks CodeWarrior and the PowerPlant C++ framework. It's actually pretty amazing that for most of the 90s Apple let Metrowerks own the developer experience. I always thought that Jobs' greatest triumph in pushing Rhapsody was bringing their developers back to using their own tools (though I suppose Carbon could be considered a short term loss).
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    You can get lots of nice information about it here, Revolution in The Valley http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596007195.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596007195.do C only took over because of UNIX.
- jawngee 14y ago
  Not only that, but an OOP version of Pascal created by Apple with input from Niklaus Wirth. I love Pascal. Clean, concise, rigid, fast. Haven't touched it in 10 years though.
  - malkia 14y ago
    Turbo Pascal 3.0 was my first serious programming language (after Apple ][ Basic). 30kb of editor/compiler in one package. Then used Turbo/Borland Pascal 5.0/5.5 for quite a while, a bit of 6.01, short Delphi, and by that time already moved to C/C++ I moved of a reasonably stupid thing. The MoveFile() function exposed in Borland Pascal was not able to move files between folders. Although I knew some assembly, and Ralph Brown Interrupt List was the greatest thing ever, I did not consider rewriting routines in it (For some reason I was thinking - this language supports this, and this one that... much later I realized - these were just libraries, even if they were builtin ones - CRT). But for that reason I moved to C/C++ - because it had the function... lol. I loved how .TPU/.DPU files worked, much more efficient than headers.
    - pjmlp 14y ago
      It is really sad that C eventually took over. Now we need to force everyone to move to safer languages. One thing I like in C++ over C, is that the language + libraries gives me enough freedom to achieve a Pascal like programming safety, thanks to references, STL and stronger type checking than C.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    You might want to have a look at what Wirth designed afterwards. I specially like the Native Oberon and Active Oberon operating systems.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  Yes, regardless of what C preachers like to spread, Pascal is also good for application development. Although the original version lacked a few features, most dialects had them. Turbo Pascal and Mac Pascal were considered the dialects to achieve compatibility with. Eventually in 1990 there was a revised version of the standard, Extended Pascal which contained such features. However by then the Pascal world searched for Turbo Pascal compatibility on most compilers.
meaty 14y ago
And for something a little more modern (OpenPDN - a fork of Paint.Net which is comparable to photoshop in some ways): http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/source/browse/ http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/source/browse/
- pserwylo 14y ago
  I'm curious, how does this compare to something like The Gimp, which I've always considered comaprable to Photoshop in almost every way)
  - lttlrck 14y ago
    Comparable? Care to quantify? MS Paint is 'comparable' with Photoshop. Just not very positively except in startup time.
    - pserwylo 14y ago
      I mean comparable, in the sense that it has a similar set of features, and allows you to perform similar tasks with similar amount of effort.
      - rimantas 14y ago
        That can only be true if you choose to ignore a lot of photoshop features.
      - DanBC 14y ago
        I love the Gimp. I never ever try to say it's comparable to Photoshop. Really, there's a whole bunch of stuff which is trivially easy in photoshop and not so much in Gimp.
  - dagw 14y ago
    Paint.Net has many fewer features then Gimp, but the features it does have are fast, clean and simple to use (for reasonably small files). It's my go to tool on Windows for basic editing tasks.
micheljansen 14y ago
The site is down, but I mirrored the source code here: http://cl.ly/061Z0b463V2f http://cl.ly/061Z0b463V2f (license: https://gist.github.com/micheljansen/4949042 https://gist.github.com/micheljansen/4949042) The article (cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&rls=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcomputerhistory.org%2Fatchm%2Fadobe-photoshop-source-code%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcomputerhistory.org%2Fatchm%2Fadobe-photoshop-source-code%2F&gs_l=serp.3...8595.8595.0.8861.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.1...1c.1.3.psy-ab.WTAAqOxnFbo&pbx=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&clien...) also has some cool screenshots of early Photoshop :)
- networked 14y ago
  Could someone with an appropriate background analyze the license in-depth? Looks like it allows you to produce derivative products, which is great, however, it also forbids commercial use, meaning it's at least not at the same level as FSF- and OSI-approved licenses.
  - adestefan 14y ago
    IMHO, the license is pretty clear that you can't even post the source on GitHub.
    - chrisdevereux 14y ago
      Yeah, that and the the "It may not be distributed to third parties" bit at the top of each file.
leoh 14y ago
Any hope of being able to compile this on a modern system? I wonder what it would take...
- masklinn 14y ago
  Likely rewriting the assembly sections. The Pascal parts ought work, if you have a compiler for the same pascal dialect.
  - Millennium 14y ago
    You'd also need the MacApp framework, which I don't think was ever ported to OSX.
    - Millennium 14y ago
      Well I'll be damned; after some more research, it looks like it WAS ported (unofficially) to OSX. That said, I'm not sure it works with the original language anymore.
- wreckimnaked 14y ago
  there are some Mac OS 8 and 9 images around; probably you'd have more luck trying to compile it under a VM booting one of those
jgoney 14y ago
What really blows me away is how comparatively little the interface has changed over the years...not to sound dense, but it looks exactly like you'd expect Photoshop to look.
- leejoramo 14y ago
  Much of Photoshop's interface came from Apple's own MacPaint which shipped at the launch of Macintosh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MacpaintWP.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MacpaintWP.png http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=MacPaint_Evolution.txt&topic=MacPaint&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    Coincidentally, the CHM has MacPaint's source[0] as well. (I've honestly not heard much about CHM before. Making sure to find my way there next time I manage to end up in the Bay Area) [0] http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-quickdraw-source-code/ http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-quickdraw-...
- lttlrck 14y ago
  Some might say this is precisely why Photoshop is better than The Gimp.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    Why would they say that? GIMP hasn't changed much, aside from adding a single window as an option recently.
- okmania 14y ago
  This is a pretty good look at how litte the Photoshop interface has changed over the years. http://ipod-touch-max.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/27721.jpg http://ipod-touch-max.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/27721.jp...
ComputerGuru 14y ago
Github repo/mirror of source code, for those so inclined: https://github.com/mqudsi/photoshop https://github.com/mqudsi/photoshop
melling 14y ago
100,000 lines. Wonder what it would take to crowd source a port? Best "modern" language? Java? Javascript? Go?
- adestefan 14y ago
  Why would you need to port it to anything? Pascal is still a useful language.
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    Even if the core logic were left in Pascal, the assembly language would need porting to x86/x86_64 and the GUI code would need to be ported to a modern GUI library.
  - melling 14y ago
    It would attract a wider range of developers. The idea is to crowd source the task.
- chrisdevereux 14y ago
  Think the main challenge would be writing a compatibility layer for the Mac OS APIs circa 1990. It might not be so hard to compile the Pascal source. Edit: Maybe it could be built as a 32 bit Carbon app for OS X with some modifications. That's all a little before my time, so I'm not sure how much was changed by the time OS X came around.
- jere 14y ago
  What would the motivation be for doing this? If for anything other than historical interest, is there anything a 23 year old version of Photoshop has over GIMP?
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  The license prohibits any sort of redistribution. It's valid for personal use, research, and study only. As usual, Adobe doesn't "get it".
  - 14y ago
jakejake 14y ago
Does anybody know how to build this, or if it's even possible on the current Mac architecture and OS?
- leledumbo 14y ago
  Nope, it will require porting. Only the pure Pascal part is portable. The Assembly and MacApp parts are not, and MacApp no longer exists in OS X AFAIK.
avodonosov 14y ago
old good Pascal
qompiler 14y ago
This is hilarious! Gimp's interface (separate windows) is based on Photoshop 1.0?
- mseepgood 14y ago
  Photoshop on Mac has separate windows up to the present day.
nathell 14y ago
The first call ever made by the main module (MPhotoshop.p) is InitToolbox(8); However, there is no other mention of InitToolbox in the sources. Is it part of the Mac OS API? Which compiler were these sources meant for?
- kalleboo 14y ago
  It's part of the MacApp framework, which isn't included in this source dump since it's copyright Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacApp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacApp "MacApp was based on Object Pascal, Apple’s object-oriented extension to Pascal, developed in consultation with Pascal inventor Niklaus Wirth." http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MacApp http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MacApp
gulbrandr 14y ago
503 Service Unavailable No server is available to handle this request. :/
dexterchief 14y ago
For anyone interested in retro graphics programs, you should check out Wright Design. I wrote up a post about it and it includes a zip file of the actual program and tutorial files. I have always secretly hoped that someone would make an FOSS version of this software since I have yet to see anything like it even though it is now more than 15 years old. It seamlessly combined bitmap and vector artwork and was twice as fast as Photoshop in its day. Sad that Adobe was able to kill it off... http://mikewilliamson.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/12-years-old-and-still-the-future-of-design/ http://mikewilliamson.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/12-years-old-...

192 points by ConstantineXVI 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago

The first version of Photoshop was written in Pascal?!?

Someone 14y ago
Pascal was the Mac OS programming language. The API had data types Str255 (Pascal string, maximum 255 character, in a 256-byte memory block), Str15 (same, max 15 characters, in a 16 byte block) and the like, and many of the higher-level calls used Pascl calling conventions (lower-level calls used a mish-mash of conventions for speed. For example, low-level file calls used a register to pass pointers to parameter blocks. In the rather unlikely case you want to know, read http://filibeto.org/unix/macos/lib/dev/documentation/Carbon/Reference/Mixed_Mode_Manager/Mixed_Mode_Manager.pdf http://filibeto.org/unix/macos/lib/dev/documentation/Carbon/..., which details how you (sort of) transparently could call 68K code from PPC code and vice versa. The section "Special Case Calling Conventions" lists all special cases. You get such cases as "Parameters are passed to the routine in registers A3 and D7, and output is returned in registers D2, D3, and D4".
- lobster_johnson 14y ago
  Amazingly this looks a lot like Borland's Turbo Pascal (later Borland Pascal, later Borland Delphi, then Embaradero something), which had lots of OO extensions over the years, designed by Andreas Hejlsberg (who went on to make C#). In the golden age of Delphi, the language was pretty on par with today's Objective-C: Classes, late binding, properties, reference counting, modern strings, etc. I wonder how much influence there was between the two.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    Turbo Pascal 5.5 objects were based in Object Pascal done by Apple.
    - lobster_johnson 14y ago
      Makes sense. As far as I can see, it was not directly copied from the Mac dialect; there are some differences, like how the Mac code requires methods in the declaration to be declared fully qualified with the full class name ("PROCEDURE TEraseAll.IEraseAll (view: TImageView);").
- specialist 14y ago
  Not to be pedantic, but because I think it's interesting: The Lisa's OS was written in Pascal. http://www.cs.oberlin.edu/~jwalker/lisa-legacy/ http://www.cs.oberlin.edu/~jwalker/lisa-legacy/ "The majority of Lisa programs were written in the Pascal language by Apple with a few programs written in 68000 assembly language. To give an idea of the size of this effort the Lisa operating system was written in around 90,000 lines of Pascal and each Lisa program (eg LisaWrite) contained somewhere around 50,000 lines each." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)#H... Like others in this thread, I learned Pascal early on and was befuddled by C for a long time. I wrote some Pascal on my Apple //e, played with Lisa (had access thru work), completely missed the Mac boat, cut my teeth on TurboPascal. Gods, I loved Borland.
vor_ 14y ago
Mac programming in that era was a mix of assembly and Pascal.
leejoramo 14y ago
As other's note: Assembly and Pascal were the original system languages for the Macintosh. As I recall, C was not used until a year or two after the launch of the Mac when Lightspeed C was released. (Lightspeed was later renamed Think C) Apple did not use C heavily until the OS was re-written in C++ in System 7 in 1991
- saddino 14y ago
  Which spawned Apple's MPW IDE and their MacApp C++ framework, which ultimately gave way to Metrowerks CodeWarrior and the PowerPlant C++ framework. It's actually pretty amazing that for most of the 90s Apple let Metrowerks own the developer experience. I always thought that Jobs' greatest triumph in pushing Rhapsody was bringing their developers back to using their own tools (though I suppose Carbon could be considered a short term loss).
- pjmlp 14y ago
  You can get lots of nice information about it here, Revolution in The Valley http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596007195.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596007195.do C only took over because of UNIX.
jawngee 14y ago
Not only that, but an OOP version of Pascal created by Apple with input from Niklaus Wirth. I love Pascal. Clean, concise, rigid, fast. Haven't touched it in 10 years though.
- malkia 14y ago
  Turbo Pascal 3.0 was my first serious programming language (after Apple ][ Basic). 30kb of editor/compiler in one package. Then used Turbo/Borland Pascal 5.0/5.5 for quite a while, a bit of 6.01, short Delphi, and by that time already moved to C/C++ I moved of a reasonably stupid thing. The MoveFile() function exposed in Borland Pascal was not able to move files between folders. Although I knew some assembly, and Ralph Brown Interrupt List was the greatest thing ever, I did not consider rewriting routines in it (For some reason I was thinking - this language supports this, and this one that... much later I realized - these were just libraries, even if they were builtin ones - CRT). But for that reason I moved to C/C++ - because it had the function... lol. I loved how .TPU/.DPU files worked, much more efficient than headers.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    It is really sad that C eventually took over. Now we need to force everyone to move to safer languages. One thing I like in C++ over C, is that the language + libraries gives me enough freedom to achieve a Pascal like programming safety, thanks to references, STL and stronger type checking than C.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  You might want to have a look at what Wirth designed afterwards. I specially like the Native Oberon and Active Oberon operating systems.
pjmlp 14y ago
Yes, regardless of what C preachers like to spread, Pascal is also good for application development. Although the original version lacked a few features, most dialects had them. Turbo Pascal and Mac Pascal were considered the dialects to achieve compatibility with. Eventually in 1990 there was a revised version of the standard, Extended Pascal which contained such features. However by then the Pascal world searched for Turbo Pascal compatibility on most compilers.

meaty 14y ago

And for something a little more modern (OpenPDN - a fork of Paint.Net which is comparable to photoshop in some ways): http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/source/browse/ http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/source/browse/

pserwylo 14y ago
I'm curious, how does this compare to something like The Gimp, which I've always considered comaprable to Photoshop in almost every way)
- lttlrck 14y ago
  Comparable? Care to quantify? MS Paint is 'comparable' with Photoshop. Just not very positively except in startup time.
  - pserwylo 14y ago
    I mean comparable, in the sense that it has a similar set of features, and allows you to perform similar tasks with similar amount of effort.
    - rimantas 14y ago
      That can only be true if you choose to ignore a lot of photoshop features.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      I love the Gimp. I never ever try to say it's comparable to Photoshop. Really, there's a whole bunch of stuff which is trivially easy in photoshop and not so much in Gimp.
- dagw 14y ago
  Paint.Net has many fewer features then Gimp, but the features it does have are fast, clean and simple to use (for reasonably small files). It's my go to tool on Windows for basic editing tasks.

micheljansen 14y ago

The site is down, but I mirrored the source code here: http://cl.ly/061Z0b463V2f http://cl.ly/061Z0b463V2f (license: https://gist.github.com/micheljansen/4949042 https://gist.github.com/micheljansen/4949042) The article (cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&rls=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcomputerhistory.org%2Fatchm%2Fadobe-photoshop-source-code%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcomputerhistory.org%2Fatchm%2Fadobe-photoshop-source-code%2F&gs_l=serp.3...8595.8595.0.8861.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.1...1c.1.3.psy-ab.WTAAqOxnFbo&pbx=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&clien...) also has some cool screenshots of early Photoshop :)

networked 14y ago
Could someone with an appropriate background analyze the license in-depth? Looks like it allows you to produce derivative products, which is great, however, it also forbids commercial use, meaning it's at least not at the same level as FSF- and OSI-approved licenses.
- adestefan 14y ago
  IMHO, the license is pretty clear that you can't even post the source on GitHub.
  - chrisdevereux 14y ago
    Yeah, that and the the "It may not be distributed to third parties" bit at the top of each file.

leoh 14y ago

Any hope of being able to compile this on a modern system? I wonder what it would take...

masklinn 14y ago
Likely rewriting the assembly sections. The Pascal parts ought work, if you have a compiler for the same pascal dialect.
- Millennium 14y ago
  You'd also need the MacApp framework, which I don't think was ever ported to OSX.
  - Millennium 14y ago
    Well I'll be damned; after some more research, it looks like it WAS ported (unofficially) to OSX. That said, I'm not sure it works with the original language anymore.
wreckimnaked 14y ago
there are some Mac OS 8 and 9 images around; probably you'd have more luck trying to compile it under a VM booting one of those

jgoney 14y ago

What really blows me away is how comparatively little the interface has changed over the years...not to sound dense, but it looks exactly like you'd expect Photoshop to look.

leejoramo 14y ago
Much of Photoshop's interface came from Apple's own MacPaint which shipped at the launch of Macintosh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MacpaintWP.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MacpaintWP.png http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=MacPaint_Evolution.txt&topic=MacPaint&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  Coincidentally, the CHM has MacPaint's source[0] as well. (I've honestly not heard much about CHM before. Making sure to find my way there next time I manage to end up in the Bay Area) [0] http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-quickdraw-source-code/ http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-quickdraw-...
lttlrck 14y ago
Some might say this is precisely why Photoshop is better than The Gimp.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  Why would they say that? GIMP hasn't changed much, aside from adding a single window as an option recently.
okmania 14y ago
This is a pretty good look at how litte the Photoshop interface has changed over the years. http://ipod-touch-max.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/27721.jpg http://ipod-touch-max.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/27721.jp...

ComputerGuru 14y ago

Github repo/mirror of source code, for those so inclined: https://github.com/mqudsi/photoshop https://github.com/mqudsi/photoshop

melling 14y ago

100,000 lines. Wonder what it would take to crowd source a port? Best "modern" language? Java? Javascript? Go?

adestefan 14y ago
Why would you need to port it to anything? Pascal is still a useful language.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  Even if the core logic were left in Pascal, the assembly language would need porting to x86/x86_64 and the GUI code would need to be ported to a modern GUI library.
- melling 14y ago
  It would attract a wider range of developers. The idea is to crowd source the task.
chrisdevereux 14y ago
Think the main challenge would be writing a compatibility layer for the Mac OS APIs circa 1990. It might not be so hard to compile the Pascal source. Edit: Maybe it could be built as a 32 bit Carbon app for OS X with some modifications. That's all a little before my time, so I'm not sure how much was changed by the time OS X came around.
jere 14y ago
What would the motivation be for doing this? If for anything other than historical interest, is there anything a 23 year old version of Photoshop has over GIMP?
binarycrusader 14y ago
The license prohibits any sort of redistribution. It's valid for personal use, research, and study only. As usual, Adobe doesn't "get it".
- 14y ago

jakejake 14y ago

Does anybody know how to build this, or if it's even possible on the current Mac architecture and OS?

leledumbo 14y ago
Nope, it will require porting. Only the pure Pascal part is portable. The Assembly and MacApp parts are not, and MacApp no longer exists in OS X AFAIK.

avodonosov 14y ago

old good Pascal

qompiler 14y ago

This is hilarious! Gimp's interface (separate windows) is based on Photoshop 1.0?

mseepgood 14y ago
Photoshop on Mac has separate windows up to the present day.

nathell 14y ago

The first call ever made by the main module (MPhotoshop.p) is InitToolbox(8); However, there is no other mention of InitToolbox in the sources. Is it part of the Mac OS API? Which compiler were these sources meant for?

kalleboo 14y ago
It's part of the MacApp framework, which isn't included in this source dump since it's copyright Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacApp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacApp "MacApp was based on Object Pascal, Apple’s object-oriented extension to Pascal, developed in consultation with Pascal inventor Niklaus Wirth." http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MacApp http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MacApp

gulbrandr 14y ago

503 Service Unavailable No server is available to handle this request. :/

dexterchief 14y ago

For anyone interested in retro graphics programs, you should check out Wright Design. I wrote up a post about it and it includes a zip file of the actual program and tutorial files. I have always secretly hoped that someone would make an FOSS version of this software since I have yet to see anything like it even though it is now more than 15 years old. It seamlessly combined bitmap and vector artwork and was twice as fast as Photoshop in its day. Sad that Adobe was able to kill it off... http://mikewilliamson.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/12-years-old-and-still-the-future-of-design/ http://mikewilliamson.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/12-years-old-...