Re: scripting Photoshop
Re: scripting Photoshop
- Subject: Re: scripting Photoshop
- From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:02:02 -0600
on 12/13/2000 4:29 PM, Cal at email@hidden wrote:
>
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.
Ok, I've made a lot of assumptions here, some based on things others have
said. Please accept my apologies.
All I am saying, Cal, is that when people purchase Photoshop, they expect it
to be scriptable, just like any other app - at least supporting the standard
(required?) events. The first time I took a peek at Photoshop's dictionary,
I was appalled. I imagine it would b better for everyone if scripting
support was built-in.
I understand now that you put a lot of work into Photoscripter. A full year
is a long development cycle. And I realize now that some of the quirks I
have noticed are due to the fact that it uses a dynamic dictionary.
>
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).
Ok, that makes sense.
>
> 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...)
Understood. I still think the price is high. I know you need to put food
on the table, but $900 for a full product is a bit much (for any graphics
product).
>
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.
I've been scripting for 3 years, Mac OS programming for 9 years.
>
In my next post, I present an account of the facts and sequence of
>
events leading up to the creation of PhotoScripter.
Cal: Thanks for setting me (and others) straight. I apologize for my
incorrect assumptions and assertions.
JR