Re: Where is the Missing Link?.
Re: Where is the Missing Link?.
- Subject: Re: Where is the Missing Link?.
- From: Rachel Cogent <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 08:11:28 -0600
Thanks everyone for all the help. This support is heartening.
I have no objection to the additions and have installed several. I did use a
script with Akua and it was very compact.
My whole concept of programming has always what I call "modularization".
That is, to separate the components into pieces that can be easily cobbled
together in new ways. For example, make a text list of files and then run
another script on the list to process those files. This is why I really must
LEARN the nuts and bolts rather than pester people for constant advice.
This is the kind of programming I am used to(working a stack):
<< SWAP OVER
DO ROT DUP 2 + ROLL HARM EVAL 3 ROLLD OVER POS 3 ROLLD POS + 2 + 3
/ DUP 23 > 38 * - FLOOR
UNTIL ROT 1 - DUP NOT
END DROP SWAP NOT COEF OBJ-> 1 0 ROT
DO ROT OVER 3 + ROLL / 36 / DUP2 SWAP 2 * 5 + DUP ROLL SWAP 1 -
PICK SIGN OVER SIGN == OVER SIGN * - * 4 ROLL +
UNTIL ROT 1 - DUP NOT
END + SWAP DROP + >>
So I have a lot to learn and will take some weeks to get oriented on the
basics of the script. Thank you for all the nuggets, they seem to be hidden
in nooks and crannies all over the internet. My desktop is crammed and I
need to digest it all.
For the subject of "useful stuff for beginners" I wished I could have found
a collection of scripts which were not actually runnable but "snippets" of
script with explanations as to what they do and how to integrate them into a
meaningful whole.
I will assume you are all intelligent and competent people and that
AppleScript is a viable programming language. And above all; DONT GET
HYSTERICAL!!!!
Rachel
http://www.gnarlodious.com
Entity Paul Berkowitz spoke thus:
>
On 9/25/01 9:06 AM, "Paul Skinner" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> I think this may do what you want without adding any OSAX to your
>
> system. Not that that would be a bad thing.
>
>
I can't imagine that Rachel has any objection to adding an osax. She wants
>
simplicity. She wants to do in as few lines as possible, with minimal
>
learning curve, what she can do with one line in DOS. She does not want a
>
100-line mammoth which she can't yet understand. Given her personal
>
conditions, she is hardly likely to be working for a big company with IT
>
overlords who forbid scripting additions. Without that consideration,
>
objections to osaxen strike me as pure superstition, or maybe more like
>
religious proscriptions of some zealot sect. Rachel just wants to get a job
>
done. Emmanuel's 'catalog' sounds like just the ticket.
>
>
The trouble with all the great scripting additions is that until you know
>
about them, you just don't know they exist nor what they can so. AppleScript
>
is so de-centralized, it does take a very long time to amass the knowledge
>
you need. There's no one place to read up on everything that would encompass
>
AppleScript language, Standard Additions, other additions, application
>
terminology. <http://www.osaxen.com> would be a good place to go when you're
>
stuck, and just look around.
>
>
Or ask here.
>
>
I will never forget my introduction to AppleScript, when I spent four days
>
studying the ASLG twice from cover to cover, trying vainly to find out how
>
to bring an application to the front, which I _knew_ was possible. I just
>
couldn't remember what the term was, nor did I find it in the ASLG. Finally,
>
someone here told me that it was 'activate', and that this was actually a
>
"built-in scripting addition". If it's an addition, why is it built in? If
>
it's actually built in to the AppleScript extension (which it is), why is it
>
an "addition", described in the Standard Additions Guide although it's not a
>
Standard Addition and is not in the Standard Additions dictionary, rather
>
than in the ASLG? In fact, this must be a purely historical accident, in
>
that it was added (back in the Middle Ages) first as an addition _before_ it
>
got built in. It _should_ be in the ASLG as part of the AppleScript
>
language, which should be revised to include 'activate'.
>
>
AppleScript is full of illogicalities like this, mixed in with its eminent
>
basic logicality. This makes it harder to learn than it should be. It needs
>
a thorough, official overhaul, more authoritative than an O'Reilly's book.
>
Let's wait a year until OS X is firmly in place and AppleScript for OS X
>
with it, and until more important things like whose filters for lists and
>
records have been added to the language. Then perhaps a revision of the
>
whole language plus a re-thinking of the Help guides might be in order?
>
Perhaps Apple could also work with a few applications to set a sample model
>
of an application's AppleScript Reference, and could even start
>
co-ordinating them with uniform format. A multi-volume AppleScript Reference
>
set for scriptable applications (in PDF) plus osaxen would provide somewhere
>
central for everyone learning AppleScript to consult without tearing their
>
hair out.