Re: scripting Photoshop
Re: scripting Photoshop
- Subject: Re: scripting Photoshop
- From: Cal <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:29:29 -0500
Okay, this has gone far enough!!! (If I seem a bit gruff at times
here, I'm just a little miffed)...and some of what's here is intended
as humorous...
Leonard Rosenthol at email@hidden wrote:
Let's stop making stuff off because it sounds good. If you don't
know the REAL truth - don't start spouting off with crap...If you
want to do that, find another list to vent on!
The harder they blow, the further they fall. :^) Read on...
This is actually Cal's fault more than Adobe's.
Originally (PS4) there WERE plans for REAL AppleScript
support (since hooking up the two architectures is pretty trivial
given their similarity) - BUT Cal came to Adobe (and has many times
since) to convince them NOT to do their own scripting support because
that would take away his livelihood (aka Photoscripter).
Huh? This couldn't be more completely backwards. As you'll see
later, I _wanted_ Adobe to do it (see my next post, immediately
following this one).
And hooking up those architectures might have seemed "trivial" from
the purely techical point of view, but unfortunately to make smooth
scripting directly from what is there would have nearly been
impossible. If it were that trivial, it wouldn't have taken us a
year.
JollyRoger <email@hidden> wrote:
So Cal thwarted built-in Applescript support in one of the most popular
graphics applications for Mac so that he would be able to continue charging
$300+ for his third-party app.
Leonard again, with just a single word:
Yup!
Huh? Hellooo??
This conclusion would lead people to believe that I'm a selfish jerk,
as if I spoiled some beneficent Adobe plan. Ahem. I'm outraged that
Leonard would twist around my good intentions.
If you were a reporter in the media, I'd have your butt in court for
libel. That's the problem with the )(*@#&$^ internet...people get
away with saying anything they feel like...and people believe them.
Over the years, we've seen how Leonard corrects people when they're
inaccurate. So who corrects him when he's inaccurate? :^) Let's
see... Oh...that would be me:
Bzzt - sorry, and thanks for playing, Leonard!
Jolly Roger rebuts:
The end result?
a) Users that do not know about Photoscripter are miffed when they learn
that this wonderful graphics app flat-out sucks in the Applescript
department.
Back off, Roger. Granted, you may be a user, and may know what you'd
like. But you have no idea what it took to do this...over a year's
work from two top experts. Adobe would have to have at least two
full-time people (probably more) on it for at least a year.
This brings me to the original questions.
Greg Reyna <email@hidden> began by asking the question:
Shouldn't scriptability be a normal function of well made program?
Once a command or function is created to operate by menu
or button within a program, why isn't the Apple Script access to that command
or function simply made available by the developers?
Unfortunately, it's quite a difficult job to retrofit AppleScript to
an existing application, especially one which is about a million
lines of code, worked on by several different teams throughout the
years.
Back to JollyRoger:
Because Adobe apparently (a) didn't think of Applescript during development
of Photoshop,...
Ahem. The earliest copyright date on my copy of Photoshop is 1989.
Photoshop was in development before any serious engineering work on
AppleScript was begun (most of the engineering of AppleScript took
place from 1990 to early 1993).
b) Users that do know of Photoscripter (and have the money to pay for it
after unloading their wallet on Photoshop) pay out the wazoo for it.
Thanks, Cal. This is definitely better for users.
You're welcome. I absolutely did do what was best for users, which
is to provide scripting support, where there was none, since Adobe
wouldn't do it. (Keep reading...)
Back to Leonard:
Actually, I would argue that Cal & Eric did a BETTER job than
Adobe's engineers would have done at the time since they had MUCH
more experience with AS/scripting than almost anyone working on
Photoshop or related technologies did.
And:
I, for one, am VERY glad that Photoscripter exists and that
it shows Adobe (and others) what can be done with a good scripting
implementation on top of a high end graphics package.
Thanks for the kind words. Okay, you've got a couple of redemption
points, redeemable against having maligned my character. :^) But,
to paraphrase a friend, "Truth here does not make up for
misinformation elsewhere."
Jolly Roger rebuts:
How would you know? Adobe never implemented built-in support, so you have
nothing to compare it to. That's purely speculation.
Roger, were you scripting 4 or 5 years ago? At the time, Adobe had
poor, if any, scripting support for any of their products. To
wit...Acrobat (poor), Illustrator (none), PageMaker (none), etc.
In my next post, I present an account of the facts and sequence of
events leading up to the creation of PhotoScripter.
Cal