Back to Adoption Barriers (was Re: Applescript Studio announced today!)
Back to Adoption Barriers (was Re: Applescript Studio announced today!)
- Subject: Back to Adoption Barriers (was Re: Applescript Studio announced today!)
- From: email@hidden (Michael Sullivan)
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:08:31 -0400
- Organization: Business Card Express of Connecticut
>
At 12:06 Uhr -0700 25.09.2001, Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>
And BTW: let's see first if AppleScript really matures into a
>
full-fledged programming language anytime soon. You have to admit
>
that REALBasic does a lot of things out of the box - as opposed to
>
needing an OSAX for every task that goes beyond sending a message to
>
some App.
I realize after reading this, that *this* is where my problem is. I
posted a comment about feeling the documentation for Applescript is
inadequate, and I *do* feel that way. But on reading Chris Nebel's
comments, I had to admit, I can't find fault with the ASLG, which I
downloaded as soon as I made any attempt to use AS.
The source of this seeming contradiction is that the ASLG only discusses
the core language: the basic syntax, the abstract principles of the
object model and the required and standard text suites. This it does
very well. Problem is, that core language is very sparse in the
universe of what people want to do with scripting.
There is no equivalent of the standard libraries in many languages, or
an app framework in many IDEs. You can get that, of course, but one
does so by cobbling together various third party tools. You have to
*know* about those tools and find them.
Once you have a good set, you've got a really great scripting
environment, but a hodge podge of hard to pull together documentation.
Some of the most expansive and amazingly powerful osax libraries are not
what I would call thoroughly documented (Can we say Akua Sweets?).
The power is out there to do what I want, but it's not easy to get
there.
Contrast this with OneClick -- a huge set of really handy tools
(functions and object wrappers) is built right into the main install --
and the documentation for all of it is in one document.
As far as total language power, AS has EasyScript beat hands down, no
question. But as far as getting the language and the docs and being
able to script something useful quickly? AS only becomes as easy to
deal with after a long learning curve and a careful collection of osax
have been installed and studied.
This is not an indictment of the simplicity of core AS! I think that's
an excellent design decision. *BUT*, AS adoption would be wider if
simple to use but powerful tools developed with the design of the core
language in mind were included with it, or in a fairly inexpensive
package that could be bought and was well advertised.
This also bears on why the English like syntax of AS doesn't help new
scripters as much as it could. AS syntax adds a certain level of
verbosity over most languages I'm used to. To the extent that it aids
clarity in reading code and ease of writing it, this is a very good
trade off. In practice, I haven't found that it does. It's rather
maddening, because at first glance it *looks* like it should be more
intuitive, but it so rarely is.
Again, I think what's responsible is the hodge-podge of third party
tools needed to do anything useful with AS. Obviously scripting apps is
going to suffer from this problem to an extent that Apple has no control
over.
In a perfect world, I envision a large and powerful standard library of
osaxen. I see that and the scripting of OS components designed and
implemented as well as the core language itself. I see an overarching
design by one person/team that encompasses all of those things.
Finally, I see documentation equivalent in quality to the ASLG on all of
that in one place.
IMO, this would go a long way toward making applescript as intuitive
(easy to code and easy to read) as the first marketers tried to claim it
is. I don't think this kind of vision is ever going to appear if
everything but the core language is left to third-party developers.
I can't tell you how many times I've needed to do something non-app
dependent, or involving the OS in an Applescript and thought "Gee, this
would be so much easier in OneClick." I realize that almost everytime I
think that, there's some osax somewhere that would make it just as or
almost as easy in AS, but that doesn't mean I know what it is or where
to find it.
The original marketing speak claims for AS seem almost achievable in
principle (at least for automating the OS itself), but unless Apple, or
someone, takes the lead on fleshing out a really comprehensive framework
of data structures, common algorithms and OS tools all in one design,
they are no more than a pipe-dream.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan email@hidden
Business Card Express of Connecticut Thermographers to the Trade
"You hate your job -- why didn't you say so? There's a support group
for that. It's called everybody; they meet at the bar." -Drew Carey