re : Script Objects/Libraries/Code Reuse
re : Script Objects/Libraries/Code Reuse
- Subject: re : Script Objects/Libraries/Code Reuse
- From: "Jason W. Bruce" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:22:13 +0000
Richard23 wrote:
>
AppleScript's user base is probably less than it would (or should) be
>
if libraries were as easy to incorporate as in languages such as Perl
>
or JavaScript.
>
>
Although most of the libraries for JavaScript tend to be yet another
>
mouse rollover image swap method...take a look at <http://www.cpan.org>
>
to see what a user base is capable of when the language makes itself
>
easily extendible through code reuse. Amazing quantity of scripts for
>
everything under the sun.
Richard23, I have to disagree with you here. Perl and JavaScript
have such large user bases because they are optimized for the Internet, not
because they import libraries easily. Also, you can't separate Perl from
its Unix background. It's been a robust language for a long period of time
in an environment were every user had to know how to write shell scripts
just to function on the computer. In Unix, you need a script to do
everything under the sun.
AppleScript, on the other hand, is optimized for driving desktop
applications. We don't need a script to do everything under the sun,
because programmers have already bundled this functionality into their apps.
All we have to do is grab the data from one app and feed it to another.
This is why AppleScript is a small language. It's supposed to let the apps
it drives do all the work. We may lament the omission in AppleScript of
features commonly found in other languages, but these are design tradeoffs
which make the language as a whole a pleasure to use for those devoted to
it.
The real reason AppleScript's user base is so small is because the
language has *never* been marketed, and so few apps until recently have
been scriptable. It seems to me to be such compelling technology, though,
that it should really only be just a matter of time.
Jason Bruce