Re: Smile
Re: Smile
- Subject: Re: Smile
- From: Ed Stockly <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:54:15 -0800
>
> Scripter is closer to the Script Editor interface than either Smile
>
> or SD (another fine product).
>
>>> Why should Scripter be closer on Script Editor than Script Debugger? Seems
i miss the Run and Rec buttons somewhere:
Yes, Scripter does not have those two buttons, but overall, I believe the
Script Debugger interface is further from Script Editor than Scripter.
Although it's probably closer than Smile.
The point I was making was that if you start editing with Script Editor you
can go pretty far with the tools that are built in (the log, result window)
In Scripter, you don't have to forget everything you learned about using
those tools to go onto more advanced tools. Scripter (and SD) have both and
a lot more. Smile doesn't.
>
> Scripter doesn't compile a script automatically when the user choose to run
>
or save it, instead giving always an error message. Script Debugger and
>
Script Editor does.
Scripter does not save an uncompiled script without asking the user if
that's what they want to do. It's not an error message, it gives you a
option to save as text or compile and then save. With Script Editor you can
only save a script as text if it won't compile. I prefer having the option
to save an uncompiled script as text.
It does automatically compile a script when you Step or Run.
Even so, is automatic compiling such a big issue? It's a difference of
hitting a single keystrong (the enter key) before running/saving.
>
Scripter does not compile larger lists or &-statements. Script Debugger and
>
Script Editor do.
I've compiled scripts with huge lists in Scripter, I'm not sure what you're
claiming here. Could you send me an example offline?
>
But more important as an comparison how close an editor is on Apples Script
>
Editor is the fact that Main Event is very unresponsive in removing all the
>
small bad things that bother scripters every day. The 2.5 update (fee) has
>
covered nothing what was really important for the daily use. Very
>
disappointing to see an actually really good tool in such a state.
I was very pleased with 2.5 and short of changes which would require a major
overhall, I'd say Cal has has done a good job meeting the needs of the
largest number of AppleScripters.
ES