Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MacPaint Source Code Released to Museum

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the keep-it-away-from-ben-stiller dept.

Graphics 175

gbooch writes "The Computer History Museum, located in Mountain View, California, is not only a museum of hardware but also a museum of software. Today, with the permission of Apple, the Museum has made available the original source code of MacPaint. MacPaint was written by Bill Atkinson, a member of the original Macintosh development team. Originally called MacSketch, he based it on his earlier LisaSketch (also called SketchPad) for the Apple Lisa computer. Bill started work on the Macintosh version in early 1983. "

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And.... (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962822)

And nothing of consequence was gained.

frist psot (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32962828)

macpaint isn't pants at all. i like it a lot

So? (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962836)

It's open source now? ;-)

Open, but not Free (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963016)

The copyright notice included says, "This Material is Copyright © 1984 Apple Inc. and is made available only for non-commercial use."

Pretty sure that would preclude it from being used for anything except academic study. Certainly it would not be allowed to be contributed to any GPL projects.

Re:Open, but not Free (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963374)

So how long until that copyright will expire?

Re:Open, but not Free (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963456)

74 years after Atkinson dies. Err, wait, I mean, whatever Disney says.

Re:Open, but not Free (1, Insightful)

CasperIV (1013029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963654)

So how long until that copyright will expire?

A lot longer than the code will be relevant.

Re:Open, but not Free (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964188)

Will be? It isn't relevant now, in terms of actual utility. It was written against a toolkit that no longer ships for a machine which had 128KB of RAM and a monochrome screen.

The only relevance that it has at all is historical. It was one of the showcase applications at the launch of the original Mac and so it's interesting to see how people worked on such resource-constrained systems. You wouldn't do things the same way now - even a cheap mobile phone is a few orders of magnitude more powerful than the original Mac and so the original constraints do not apply.

Even if they did, I doubt many people starting today would want a load of m68k assembly and Pascal. You could maybe rewrite the assembly functions in terms of a modern toolkit and recompile the Pascal to run on a new system, but there are much better drawing programs available for free - including some in Apple's developer examples (under a permissive license).

Re:Open, but not Free (0, Flamebait)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964956)

Hey Stupid: I've got a Ti-89a which uses the original Mac CPU. It also includes a bit more memory (not much more) then the original Mac did so something like this would be useful today to many folks using such a Calculator. That's right, there's a current real world use for such an app and I wonder how long before one of the Ti Hackers gets around to rewriting it to run on a Ti Calculator.

Re:Open, but not Free (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965128)

The TI-89a has a much smaller screen than MacPaint had, and it likely interfaces to it in a different way. None of the Mac toolbox APIs are available and, most importantly, the TI-89a has no mouse and so controlling an app designed exclusively for a mouse would be painful.

Writing a drawing program from scratch for the calculator would be simpler than porting MacPaint - indeed, a port would likely become a complete rewrite by the time it was finished.

Re:Open, but not Free (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32965948)

Perhaps you should learn the difference between "then" and "than" before you call others stupid.

As goes Apple... (1)

Akido37 (1473009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962842)

Hopefully this starts a trend where companies release their source to the world once they're done with it.

Re:As goes Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32962906)

Yeah, well, I'm not so sure I'll be interested in Office 2010 in 27 years. :D

Re:As goes Apple... (3, Funny)

Vnuce (1795582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963014)

Heck, I'm not even interested in Office 2010 now :)

Re:As goes Apple... (5, Informative)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962944)

Uh... id has been doing this for years. And id doesn't wait 27 years to do it, either.

ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/ [idsoftware.com]

Re:As goes Apple... (0, Troll)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963520)

More-over ID typically releases their source code under the GPL - so it's actually USEFUL.

This is why there are still doom ports for every platform known to man, and quake ports and Q3A...

Re:As goes Apple... (2, Insightful)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964168)

And if we're "lucky" Doom 3 will be the last one... One of the consequences of id's merger with Zenimax is that the latter have no interest in sharing their tech with the outside world. Word has it that Carmack will "petition" them to release the Doom 3 source. It feels like the end of an age.

Re:As goes Apple... (2, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964256)

How many great companies have been destroyed by bad mergers.
The Activision/Blizzard merger has already caused one of the biggest PR disasters in the history of the gaming company we considered one of the best in the world before - not only to work at, but to deal with as a customer. The Zenimax/ID merger is rapidly destroying the soul of perhaps one of the most innovative companies in the history not only of gaming but of software as a whole. ID for their genre-redefining (and in at least one case CREATING) work ranks right up there with the original Sierra/Online as one of the companies that created the foundations on which the modern gaming industry was built.

I remember when John Carmack said of the reason for the first doom1 source release that he did it "because Linux gives me a woody"...

It's sad to see truly great companies get swallowed up into corporate hiveminds and lose the wonder that they once held for us.

Re:As goes Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32965582)

Zenimax isnt evil the'yve made Oblivion and Fallout 3!! The greatest games ever!

Who cares about your insignificant 'quake' and 'doom' games. Everyone knows in 1994 the hottest game out there was Terminator Rampage and Arena, you are wrong.

Re:As goes Apple... (0)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964486)

I can hear it now - "It doesn't matter that companies like ID, as well as all the Linux and open source developers, released their source first. Apple were the ones who 'popularised' it! Hardly anyone used open source software before Apple did it, but now everyone will be running MacPaint!"

Re:As goes Apple... (2, Funny)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962946)

What constitutes done with it? When was the last time any development or effort was put into any thing DukeNukem related? What about Windows 3.1 (oh sorry, that code is still in Windows, isn't it, heh)

Re:As goes Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32962960)

How long before microsoft releases the clippy source?

Re:As goes Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963034)

Never.

Not out of commitment to closed source, but out of embarrassment.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

nicknamesarefunny (1810810) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963106)

it was released long time back...atleast the pseudo code was. here it is for you:

1. show up at most unwanted time
2. freeze everything while you do the clippy animation
3. offer a random text of advice
4. ignore users attempt to make you go away
5. goto 2 unless user really banging keyboard
6. exit and take the entire office with you

Abandonware (4, Interesting)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962964)

Assuming the source code is still kept in useful form by a company that is not ashamed of it, there is little to lose and much goodwill to be gained by releasing "abandonware" -- but those are two large assumptions, aren't they?

I have released my HDOS, CP/M, and MS-DOS product source code from the 1980s [wlindley.com] ; there were a few other software packages I sold back then, but I no longer have readable floppies with enough bits of source to release them.

Re:As goes Apple... (4, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963146)

Hopefully this starts a trend where companies release their source to the world once they're done with it.

That was kind of the point with the concept of "copyright": that the copyrighted work in question would enter the public domain after a short time in order to enrich society as a whole.

What *should* be happening, at the very least, is that a full copy (including source and binaries, in the case of software) of any copyrighted work be placed in government escrow so that it can be released to the public after the copyright expires (which should be about five or ten years, in the case of software).

How sad that copyright law has been twisted so terribly by the rich and powerful to the detriment of human civilization.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963340)

I agree with everything except the 'a full copy (including source and binaries, in the case of software) of any copyrighted work be placed in government escrow' - my personal opinion is that binaries and source code are two separate entities, and I see no reason why someone who has the public binary should get the private source when the copyright expires.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963438)

Interesting. You could draw a comparison to books. When the copyright expires on a book, is the author required to release the notes and research he did while writing it?

Similarly, I don't have to release to the public letters written by my great-great-great-great grandmother, even though they'd be out of copyright now had I/she published them in the past.

Re:As goes Apple... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964446)

The comparison I was thinking of personally was film making - lots of 'source' material involved in making a film that will never see the light of day when copyright expires on it, especially with more modern digital and animated films (the model and textures for Shrek for example).

Re:As goes Apple... (2, Insightful)

profplump (309017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965188)

You don't have to release it, but you never asserted copyright protections on it either. It doesn't seem unreasonable to tie the two together -- you can keep something secret OR assert copyright protections, but not both.

We do exactly the same thing with patents. You can have trade secrets and even take legal action to protect them and prevent them from being improperly shared. OR you can have patent, which makes the design public, but allows you to prohibit use of the design even in independent implementations. But you can't patent something and keep it a secret.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963590)

And I see absolutely no USE for a 10-year old binary without source code. With source code you can base new programs on it, port it to new platforms and be able to read your data files from 10 years ago...

With source code you are actually enriching the public domain, without it - you're doing nothing of any value whatsoever. Whatever value binary-only software may have is definitely incredibly time-linked. Abandonware binaries have little or no use. The best you could hope for is to run them in an emulator - and that is hardly ideal in the best of cases. It's so much better to be able to take that code and port it to run natively on what you need now.
Just consider that the vast majority of the software from the early 90's can now easily be run on smartphones that have more than enough screen estate and processing for them. Heck doom was ported to one of the early nokia smartphones years ago, and in it's day it was one of the most resource intensive games ever created.

If anything this is MORE true of applications than of games.

Re:As goes Apple... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964428)

No one is required to ensure that something is of any *use* when copyright expires on it, so your argument about binaries doesn't hold water.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964698)

The purpose of copyright is to contribute value to the public domain. It makes sense not to put a definition of value on say, a book or a painting. Why does it make sense ? Because often the value of these works aren't even RECOGNIZED until well after the copyright is expired and the creator long dead. We all know the Vincent Van Gogh type histories.

But when it comes to a functional work - it has a functional purpose, and since the REASON for copyright is to serve the public - it can be reasonably stated that you are NOT contributing to the public domain unless this functional purpose is MET by the software after the copyright expired.
To this end, source code is essentially required in order to ensure that the functional value of the software IS in fact contributed to the public domain. Copyright does not exist to capitalize on works -it provides a MEANS of capitalization for the PURPOSE of providing the value of those works to the public at large (more specifically - to have more works' value available to the public). The value of software at copyright expiration is exclusively in the source code, not in the binary and contributing the binary would be no different from copyright never expiring.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32966010)

The purpose of copyright is to contribute value to the public domain.

But there is no guarantee of value, ever.

Don't limit others to your imagination (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965034)

Just because YOU can't conceive of a use for 10-year-old binary without source code doesn't mean others can't.

With an old binary we can at least run the program enough to create requirements suitable for reconstructing and improving the program. I've heard much of "MULE" and other great programs past, and my reflex is a desire to run them to grok their behavior and subsequently write a new take thereon. Having the source is valuable, but lacks decades of development in the art. I could write a clone of MacPaint or VisiCalc or other classics easy enough, and do so better using modern coding techniques, if only I can run the program enough.

Likewise, while source is valuable for parsing old data files, given enough data in that format I can deduce the content and write a parser from scratch.

Oh sure having the source helps, but lack thereof does not render the binary useless.

Re:Don't limit others to your imagination (0, Flamebait)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965170)

Yeah sure, because reinventing the wheel is comparable to reusing it.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965152)

Given that reasoning, are you suggesting that the code isn't protected by copyright since it wasn't published? Because traditionally copyright protections have applied to both published and unpublished works.

I'd also argue that the source code is a fundamental component of the information needed to reproduce the work, which is the basis of copyright protections. Using the book analogy, it's not only possible to photograph and re-print a book on new paper, but also to typeset the underlying text and reproduce the story in another form. Isolating the source code from the binary is like limiting reproductions of books to photographs only, and making it illegal to re-typeset the text because the original TXT files were never made public.

Re:As goes Apple... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32966162)

Given that reasoning, are you suggesting that the code isn't protected by copyright since it wasn't published? Because traditionally copyright protections have applied to both published and unpublished works.

I'd say that that is a good point and also the point I am trying to make - on expiration of copyright, you are entitled to whatever was distributed and nothing else (IE what you can get hold of), regardless of whether that makes the distributed portion pointless or not.

I'd also argue that the source code is a fundamental component of the information needed to reproduce the work, which is the basis of copyright protections. Using the book analogy, it's not only possible to photograph and re-print a book on new paper, but also to typeset the underlying text and reproduce the story in another form. Isolating the source code from the binary is like limiting reproductions of books to photographs only, and making it illegal to re-typeset the text because the original TXT files were never made public.

See my other comment about movies being a better example - there are lots of resources produced during the making of a movie that would be beneficial to the public domain, but you are never going to get. Should Hollywood be required to archive every shot, every stage design, every script notation, every special effect application shot, every lighting shot etc etc?

Hypercard? (2, Interesting)

thittesd0375 (1111917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962904)

Once Hypercard is open source then the world will be complete.

Oh wow (4, Insightful)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962934)

Oh wow, I still remember the first time I saw MacPaint-- there was nothing like it. Bill Atkinson did a superb job, shoehorning all those features so they could run in 128K of RAM.

He just barely made it-- I remember trying to find how much memory my desk accessory could use while MacPaint was running, and when you did a "print preview", the available RAM went down to like 1800 bytes! Yikes!

Folklore.org (5, Informative)

suntory (660419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963060)

It has been mentioned a few times here in /., but http://folklore.org/ [folklore.org] has a great collection of short stories about MacPaint. Worth the reading for every geek out there

Re:Folklore.org (1)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963134)

Good job killing folklore.org.

Re:Oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963192)

I remember thinking how expensive and lacking in features 'MacPaint' was. In 1985 I had a program called 'Art Studio' on my ZX-Spectrum that had mouse support, colour graphics, was far more powerful than Macpaint, and ran in 48K of memory.

Re:Oh wow (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963660)

>I remember thinking how expensive and lacking in features 'MacPaint' was.

Er, um, MacPaint was "free". It was bundled with every Mac, for at least three years.

And wasn't the color on the ZX limited to like seven colors, in 24x80 character-sized blocks?

Re:Oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32964558)

Well, my spectrum also came bundled with 3D CAD software called 'Vu-3D', released two years before the Mac came out. 3D Solid modelling software was something we just took for granted.

Art Studio was professional software, rather than just a sketchpad like 'MacPaint', and so didn't come for free with the computer.
Anyway, you probably could have bought a Spectrum, Mouse and Art Studio for less than the tax on a Mac at the time. You still ended up paying for MacPaint as the cost of developing the software added to the retail price. It seemed an enormous cost to use a limited paint programme on a tiny black and white screen.

The colour resolution on the ZX was two colours from a selection of 8 for each 8x8 pixel square, plus flash and 'bright'. With a little discipline you could get quite nice looking results.

Re:Oh wow (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964570)

And wasn't the color on the ZX limited to like seven colors, in 24x80 character-sized blocks?

15 colours.

Which is 13 more than the Mac had.

(Personally I preferred painting with 4096 colours...)

Re:Oh wow (1)

safetyinnumbers (1770570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965006)

Nearly 30 years on, I'm reading a "ZX Spectrum/Mac is better" argument. It brings a tear to my eye!

I even had a lightpen for my Spectrum.

Re:Oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32965782)

Hah! When I wrote my first scornful reply, about doing the same on the Spectrum in 48K, I felt a little frisson of righteous anger. It took me right back to my 11 year old self. :D

I built my own light pen for my ZX81, and fitted all the electronics (about 6 transistors and a sprinkling of passive components) into the body of a felt tip pen (about 1cm diameter, 12cm long). I have never been so proud of anything since.

Re:Oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32964586)

Macs had "like" 2 colors. Apple fanboys, however, were able to see the full infinite resolution/infinite colors mode.

Re:Oh wow (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963494)

The eight-year old me thought it was incredible. I remember spending a lot of hours just drawing on my parent's 512k mac. All those lost masterpieces!

Whaaaa? (4, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32962954)

;
; FUNCTION Monkey: BOOLEAN;
;
TST MonkeyLives ;IS THE MONKEY ACTIVE ?

Funcy monkey.

Re:Whaaaa? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963062)

If that's in the source, I think at one time Apple had some testing harness that sent random click events to programs to see if it would crash. That might be what is meant by the monkey.

Re:Whaaaa? (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963466)

Interesting. Palm OS had the same thing, but they called it 'Gremlins'.

Monkey test (1)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963744)

Yes, a bit later I even saw a separate release of this monkey thing: you would launch your app, then launch the monkey, and thousands of clicks were hitting the screen. (seeing this the first time was atrocious ;-)

When the worst that happened was that sooner or later a given serie of click would trigger a quit command, you were safe :-)

(and indeed, at that time, the UI was so simple, with ALL command accessible via single one-step menus, that from a quality insurance point of view, I think it did look a reasonable test...)

Re:Monkey test (2, Funny)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963780)

P. S. of course, you would never silently launch this on your office neighbor's mac. Never.

Re:Whaaaa? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963094)

Explanation: it was a reference to Apple's automated testing framework, as per the zero-score reply you can't see:

http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Monkey_Lives.txt

Re:Whaaaa? (1)

ral (93840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963246)

As someone else pointed out, the monkey sent random mouse events to the program to make sure nothing could crash it. When the monkey was alive, the code would keep the monkey from quitting the program or doing anything else that would stop it. The monkey made MacPaint a virtually crash proof program.

Nothing on Mac OS X (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32962982)

Funny how Macs now lack the equivalent of MacPaint.

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963032)

Acorn is free and does pretty much the same.

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964534)

http://flyingmeat.com/acorn/ [flyingmeat.com]

Costs $50. Did you mean Gimp?

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32964812)

After 14 days you can use it for free with all the usability MAcPaint had plus more. :)

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (2, Informative)

Morth (322218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963042)

If you install Xcode, you will get a sample app called Sketch. It's pretty much a light version of MacPaint.

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963178)

If you install Xcode, you will get a sample app called Sketch. It's pretty much a light version of MacPaint.

I have Xcode installed, and Sketch is nowhere to be found. I suspect it comes with only older versions of Xcode, unless someone can prove this guess wrong.

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (2, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963252)

/Developer/Examples/Sketch/Sketch.xcodeproj

Apple-B. /Developer/Examples/Sketch/build/Debug/Sketch.app

You don't think something that came with Developer Tools came as just an app did you?

Also means you have to have installed the examples. This is from the latest version of XCode on Snow Leopard.

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964236)

I suspect it came from an old version. The latest versions of the developer tools no longer install the examples. They are still available as a separate download, however.

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

narratorDan (137402) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965264)

I would check your sources if they did not contain the examples. Most likely you chose not to install the examples.

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

Morth (322218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963310)

Possible. It lives at /Developer/Examples/Sketch on my computer. Of course, you have to build it first.

I think there's also a few other versions available hidden in the SDK documentation. Try
open /Developer/Documentation/DocSets/com.apple.adc.documentation.AppleSnowLeopard.CoreReference.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/samplecode/Sketch-112

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

themacks (1197889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964192)

/Developer/Examples/Sketch/

All of the files should be in there for you to build it.

Re: Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963180)

Light version? You mean they even stripped black and white?

Bert
(Mac aficionado)

Re: Nothing on Mac OS X (1)

Morth (322218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963342)

Out of coffee typo. :p

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32964552)

If you install Xcode, you will get a sample app called Sketch. It's pretty much a light version of MacPaint.

I just built and ran Sketch, and it's a basic object-oriented drawing program (eg. a baby Illustrator or Visio) not a bitmapped painting program like MacPaint or MS Paint (a baby Photoshop.)

Re:Nothing on Mac OS X (2, Informative)

domatic (1128127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964234)

I rather like this for quick and simple things:

http://seashore.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

It's under active development again. The "preview snapshot" is quite nice.

Probably infringes some 1987 mspaint patent (4, Funny)

originalhack (142366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963028)


The problem with this is that Apple was so innovative that they can infringe patents for ideas that other large companies came up with years later.

Re:Probably infringes some 1987 mspaint patent (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963390)

The problem with this is that Apple was so innovative that they can infringe patents for ideas that other large companies came up with years later.

I think you mean years earlier. It's hard to infringe on something you used that someone comes up with after you've already used it. Of course, that assumes time is linear in nature so who knows.

This is beyond Awesome (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963068)

Truly. That program was a major milestone for computers. With QuickDraw, no less.

Last missing point is the whole Mac OS rom, the early System and including the Finder. That would be amazing...

--fred

Re:This is beyond Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963486)

Keep dreaming, buddy!

and Quickdraw (2, Interesting)

Teese (89081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963112)

or some early parts of it (download on the same page). That seems even more interesting to me.

MacPaint is an example of good code (4, Informative)

master_p (608214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963224)

I've looked at the source and it shows many good programming traits, like variable and procedure naming that makes sense, separation of concerns (each procedure is short and does only one or two things; and it's procedural), etc. The code is very easy to follow. It shows that good programming is more about the programmer than the programming language.

"Best program ever written" (4, Interesting)

Sits (117492) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963450)

I remember watching a NerdTV interview with Andy Hertzfeld [pbs.org] which made mention of MacPaint. Now I've done a search, I've found the transcript of Andy's interview [pbs.org] on the web. I'll quote the section I was thinking of:

[...] an older guy got up and said he thought MacPaint was probably the best program ever written. Was it possible for him to see the source code? It turns out the person asking the question was Don Knuth [...]

Sounds like Bill Atkinson can cite you and Knuth as fans :)

Re:"Best program ever written" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32964350)

master_p, this is probably the only time you're ever going to be considered more informative than Don Knuth. Savor it.

Pascal language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963228)

What I find interesting about these old Mac programs is how many of them were written in Pascal - a much more sane and friendlier language for the day. I think it enabled programmers to be more creative and focus more on solving the problem at hand. It seems back then there were two main schools of thought on how to write general application software back then, Pascal on machines like the Perq, Lisa, and Mac, and C from the Unix world. (Of course plenty of other domain specific languages too) In a way it is too bad that the C style languages have taken over these days (C++, Java, c#, etc)

Re:Pascal language (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964630)

Pascal and C are both members of the Algol family, and both provide a fairly primitive model of the computer to the programmer (flat address space, basic structure, but no higher-order functions, and so on). You can automatically translate between the two. The Pascal compiler does some extra type checking, but there's very little semantic difference between the two languages. The biggest difference is an implementation issue (not specified by either language): their early implementations passed parameters in opposite orders. Pascal pushes them onto the stack left to right, C does right to left. The Pascal approach is easier to generate code for - run the code to generate the argument, push the result, repeat - but has the disadvantage that it makes variadic functions impossible.

In comparison to things like Smalltalk on the Alto, or Lisp on various Lisp machines, they are almost the same language. Java has more in common with Smalltalk than C - the only thing it gets from C is a subset of its syntax.

Re:Pascal language (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964952)

It helped that Apple used a UCSD variant of the language, which was a lot more practical to use than "standard" Pascal. The most important thing was "units", which let you break up programs into modules with separate header files. They later implemented Object Pascal, which made use of the Macintosh Memory Manager's ability for relocatable memory objects (handles).

Then Borland goes and (IMHO with two college students over a summer break) re-implements it in a C++ sort of way for TP6 because their memory allocator was crap, due in large part to the 8088's segmented memory model and the infamous 640k limit. After having used proper Object Pascal (TML's version, as MPW was too expensive for me at the time), I was shocked that they would make such a poor imitation. It is no surprise that Next and then 90's Apple went with the Smalltalk-inspired Objective C over C++.

What no comment like RIP JSB? (3, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963304)

Without cryptic comments like 1750 ; RIP JSB the source code is not very entertaining.

Also QuickDraw code (-1, Flamebait)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963462)

But as many Slashdot readers know, QuickDraw is not important because Apple stole the GUI from Xerox.

Did anyone spot this one... (4, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963476)

;
; Wrist Test - see if user is gripping left front
; edge of mouse as this will cause drawing
; performance to drop-off
;
FUNCTION WristTest : Boolean;


Uncanny eh!?

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32963592)

Linux users can now port MacPaint to their favourite OS and get rid of this Gimp crap.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32963886)

:-D
I remember, while MacPaint was black & white, there already were alternative print kits with colors (for the Apple ImageWriter printer, yes I'm 50 years old), and you could install a separate printer pilot that would translate fill-in patterns into colors on the printer.
hum. It may well have been MacDraw patterns in fact :=/

Re:Awesome! (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965028)

Although the initial version of Quickdraw had color support, it was really primitive and (IIRC) only supported a total of 8 colors. However, due to the way that a printer worked by intercepting Quickdraw callbacks, it's no surprise that a printer driver could identify Mac Draw fill patterns and translate those to colors.

It wouldn't have been possible in Mac Paint, though, because everything was flattened to a plain bitmap.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32964834)

I assure you that gimp is much more powerful then a 20 year old mac program. Is it badly named.. yes.. but thats irrelevant to this convo.

Really? (-1, Troll)

baconjews (1859636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32964060)

"Persuaded to dig through his attic, he found a set of original MacPaint floppy disks formatted not for the original Mac, but for a flavor of the old Lisa — a Pre-Macintosh machine - that had never been released to the world."

WOW! Motherfucking Bloomberg nailed it! The Lisa was never sold! Factchecking assholes for the win!

Fuck ya - let's get this linked to Wikipedia so it's fucking official fagballs!

Re:Really? (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965244)

> The Lisa was never sold!

Ah, I think what the writer was trying to say was that the disks were the old Apple ][ / Lisa dual-sided 5 1/4 inch drives, which were the original drives intended for the Mac.
They actually did a small production run of those, for internal use, so there were Lisas and Macs with 5 1/4 inch drives, and a lot of development software was on those style of floppies.

Re:Really? (1)

dawich (945673) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965770)

If you diagrammed the sentence, you would find out that the "that had never been released to the world" refers back to "a flavor of the old Lisa" which many would take to mean a variant. It's easy to believe that not all Lisa variants were released to the world.

What license, asshole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32964512)

If you are going to talk about software, you should fucking mention the license. Otherwise it's just noise.

Should I ever meet somebody IRL who tells me (s)he is a /. editor, I will fucking pluck their eyes out. Promise.

Too sad. (2, Insightful)

drolli (522659) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965216)

It wont run on an iphone - its in pascal. Emulation or non-native/transpiled programs are forbidden, i heard.

Re:Too sad. (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965526)

Apple's TOS for the iPhone don't care what language you write your app in just so long as it compiles to native machine code for the A4 processor. If you could manage to find (or write your own) Pascal-to-A4-machine-code compiler, you could write an iPhone app in Pascal if you really wanted to.

What I'd really like.. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32965522)

...is for Apple to revive the venerable MacPaint brand and release an image editing program based on CoreImage. Could be part of iLife, could be a developer sample code project, but either way, the Mac really should ship with a way for any user to take full advantage of all the investment Apple put into that framework.

-jcr

At this rate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32965536)

we'll be getting the source for the first version of iOS [wikipedia.org] around 2035!

Or we could just look at the latest Android source [kernel.org] around now.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>