3 ms·

I had really hard time understanding AVC's point so I searched for hypercard screenshots and found this screen tour: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568 http://www.l

by aytekin 13y ago

I had really hard time understanding AVC's point so I searched for hypercard screenshots and found this screen tour: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568 It is an IDE to build small visual Mac apps. A card is basically an app.

shaggyfrog 13y ago
A card is more like a screen, not necessarily an app unto itself. Each card can be linked to other cards; buttons can be used to perform transitions between them.
AlphaGeekZulu 13y ago
The card in HyperCard was not an app, but rather served multiple purposes: First, it was a container for widgets, or, in other words, a canvas for the user interface. If the user interface would not fit in the fixed size screen of the card (it was 640x480px in the beginning and became resizable later on), it could be organized into multiple cards, each containing parts of the ui and with some navigation ui elements to browse between the cards. Second, the card could serve as a database record. In that case the card would contain editable widgets to make a form (for example for addresses), then the card was declared to be a template (in HyperCard notation a "background") and then as many cards were created from that background as database records were required. In that case field-widgets served as database columns, cards as records and backgrounds as tables. Third, the card (and its template-variant, the background) could contain code. Events (like a mousedown etc) were sent by the engine first to the respective widget on the card, then, when not handled, to the card itself, then to its template, then to the stack. The HyperCard stack was the app, and a stack was a collection of cards and cards served as user interface canvas, and, very much depending on the application logic, additionally as code or data containers.
- grkvlt 13y ago
  > it was 640x480px in the beginning Less than that. Must have been 512x342; as I remember using it on 9" Mac Plus and Classic BW screens?
  - AlphaGeekZulu 13y ago
    Hmm, could be. I first used HyperCard on a Mac IIfx and I cannot remember to have it used on my Mac SE/30 before. Will check - the original HyperCard manual from Atkinson is still somewhere in my shelves.
  - AlphaGeekZulu 13y ago
    You are right! To quote the HyperTalk 2.0 reference by Dan Winkler and Scot Kamins: "Locations 0,0 through 511,341 are within a standard card's area and are therefore visible on all Macintosh displays. Points outside those boundaries might or might not be visible, depending upon the size of the display you're using." Page 872 defines the Standard card pixel size as 512 horizontal, 342 vertical. HyperCard 2.0 allowed already to make custom sizes for stacks and my screen at that time was 640x480.

by aytekin 13y ago

shaggyfrog 13y ago

A card is more like a screen, not necessarily an app unto itself. Each card can be linked to other cards; buttons can be used to perform transitions between them.

AlphaGeekZulu 13y ago

The card in HyperCard was not an app, but rather served multiple purposes: First, it was a container for widgets, or, in other words, a canvas for the user interface. If the user interface would not fit in the fixed size screen of the card (it was 640x480px in the beginning and became resizable later on), it could be organized into multiple cards, each containing parts of the ui and with some navigation ui elements to browse between the cards. Second, the card could serve as a database record. In that case the card would contain editable widgets to make a form (for example for addresses), then the card was declared to be a template (in HyperCard notation a "background") and then as many cards were created from that background as database records were required. In that case field-widgets served as database columns, cards as records and backgrounds as tables. Third, the card (and its template-variant, the background) could contain code. Events (like a mousedown etc) were sent by the engine first to the respective widget on the card, then, when not handled, to the card itself, then to its template, then to the stack. The HyperCard stack was the app, and a stack was a collection of cards and cards served as user interface canvas, and, very much depending on the application logic, additionally as code or data containers.

grkvlt 13y ago
> it was 640x480px in the beginning Less than that. Must have been 512x342; as I remember using it on 9" Mac Plus and Classic BW screens?
- AlphaGeekZulu 13y ago
  Hmm, could be. I first used HyperCard on a Mac IIfx and I cannot remember to have it used on my Mac SE/30 before. Will check - the original HyperCard manual from Atkinson is still somewhere in my shelves.
- AlphaGeekZulu 13y ago
  You are right! To quote the HyperTalk 2.0 reference by Dan Winkler and Scot Kamins: "Locations 0,0 through 511,341 are within a standard card's area and are therefore visible on all Macintosh displays. Points outside those boundaries might or might not be visible, depending upon the size of the display you're using." Page 872 defines the Standard card pixel size as 512 horizontal, 342 vertical. HyperCard 2.0 allowed already to make custom sizes for stacks and my screen at that time was 640x480.