Re: HyperCard IIGS Stack Authors wanted!

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Louis Cornelio <cornelio@crl.crl.com> wrote:
>I am not real familiar w/ either program, but I am wondering why
>HCGS has come to be more vioable than Hyperstudio. Is it simply because
>HS is commercial $$ & HCGS now part of the system.
>
>OK, well, I figure the answer there is yes: I guess what I am really 
>hoping for is a discussion of the merits/drawbacks of the 2 programs in 
>comparison.
>
>any thoughts?

HyperCard IIGS is more powerful than HyperStudio.  It has a true
object oriented (although interpreted) programming language.  In
contrast, HyperStudio's SimpleScript is more like a tacked on
afterthought.  HyperCard is a programming environment first and
uses the stack construction metaphor to facilitate things while
HyperStudio started off as a stack construction set and only
later provided a simple programming language.

In HyperCard, the language is extensable: you can write new modules
that can be used and reused for new purposes (these are called
"handlers" which are sort of like subroutines except that they
can exist as free objects).

One thing I noticed about HCGS: HyperTalk scripts are not
tokenized so stacks can get quit large.  Why is this?  Good old
Applesoft BASIC programs are made small on disk by tokenization.
Why can't HyperCard be the same?

-Scott G.