Re: Migrating scripting additions to Mac OS X
Re: Migrating scripting additions to Mac OS X
- Subject: Re: Migrating scripting additions to Mac OS X
- From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:29:51 -0500
On 6/26/2001 2:14 AM, "Shane Stanley" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
On 26/6/01 1:39 PM +1000, JollyRoger, email@hidden, wrote:
>
>
> Let me ask you this: How much of an impact has the fact that URL Access
>
> Scripting is an application had on you? :)
>
>
Less than the fact that it's had more than its share of bugs.
>
>
> Do you dwell on it every time
>
> you use it? Do you even think about it? Me? Nope. I just use it, and it
>
> works fine.
>
>
But URL Access is nothing like a lot of scripting additions -- it has never
>
even _been_ a scripting addition. I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is that it's perfectly useful even though it's not a scripting
addition. Why ignore that fact?
>
> My point is that scriptable applications are a perfectly viable
>
> medium for extending AppleScript, arguably a better medium than scripting
>
> additions - and you can use that medium NOW in Mac OS X.
>
>
And my point is that making some scripting additions into apps is a
>
ridiculous way of making AppleScript more tortuous to learn and use than it
>
is already.
I don't see how it makes AppleScript any harder to learn. Can you give me
more details?
>
Why, for example, put ReGex in an app? Or Jon's Commands? Or
>
StuffIt Commands, or XML Tools, or the various text utilities?
Why *not* put them in apps??
>
It's crazy -- you're trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I don't see anything crazy about it. I've seen it work just fine, on the
contrary. I'm in the process of converting three or four of my scripting
additions to scriptable applications, and so far see very little impact on
usability.
You still haven't given anything but speculative reasons for why making them
apps is a bad idea.
>
>> To update them to OS X scripting additions, according to the developers I've
>
>> spoken to, is not yet fully documented. Maybe that's what's holding many of
>
>> them back.
>
>
>
> Why do that when it's easier just to turn them into scriptable apps?
>
>
Because what's easier for users matters more to me than what's easier for
>
developers. Heck, haven't you just seen the long thread here recently from
>
people who don't even want to type "tell application "Finder""? There's a
>
message there.
Yeah. The message is users are lazy.
Have you seen the long threads here on the topic of global namespace
terminology collisions? How about coercion problems resulting from
scripting addition coercion handlers? Contrast that with the small problem
of having to type "tell application". Which one has a more detrimental
effect on usability?
>
And then there's the not-so-small issue of speed. Frankly, if there's a
>
significant speed difference, that alone would be a good enough reason to
>
jump one way or the other in some cases.
If you have something other than speculation on speed differences, then
please do share. I'd like to see proof that there is a more than negligible
speed hit. Otherwise, please stop throwing speculation into this.
>
I also like the idea of facilities sitting there, not using resources unless
>
called. With apps, that means launch times, and with OS X, that spells long
>
delays.
As with Classic Mac OS, scriptable applications can be made to launch at
boot/login and stay running until the next restart. Or, if that's not what
you want, they can be made to only launch when you need them and auto-quit
when they've been idle for some time. No problem there.