Re: Scripting Additions: Embracing the Horror of Unix
Re: Scripting Additions: Embracing the Horror of Unix
- Subject: Re: Scripting Additions: Embracing the Horror of Unix
- From: email@hidden (Michael Sullivan)
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:48:05 -0500
- Organization: Society for the Incurably Pompous
steve harley writes:
>
at 2002 01 31, 20:49 -0500, they whom i call JoePostscript wrote:
>
> Well, at least you can delete and then empty the trash. For me,
>
>the biggest
>
>issue is how to issue key commands to the keyboard like with Sdndi's
>
>Additions,
>
>etc. How are we to get through a simple "OK" button? Or, has everybody
>
>else figured out how? Mouse clicks, key commands, return, etc.
>
this is a problem unix commands won't solve. it's simply not
>
as easy as it was on Mac OS 9 because of memory protection.
>
Timothy Bates has suggested we could get the system to push
>
keys (again, not with unix commands), but it would be far
>
more useful to access the actual windows and controls.
>
QuickKeys developers have hit this wall hard and the result
>
is that QuickKeys X is nowhere near as fun as it used to be.
Yeah, I'd like to make this an official call to Apple and to third party
macro developers. This sort of functionality is *essential* to those
who write workflow scripts, and to those who would automate
non-scriptable applications.
In some ways, I could do more *without* applescript on OS 9, using tools
like Keyquencer and OC, than I can do on X with AS.
There are people who wrote whole workflows using OC's easy script and
driving the interface objects of apps. I've been consulting on one
right now from a photographer who does ad specialties in GB that
inherited such a beast. Everything is done in OC, and with it he drives
Photoshop sans the incredibly expensive photoscripter.
Robust interface driving is incredibly important to those who would do
finished and fast automations on the mac, and the lack of support for
this in X is very troubling to me. Unfortunately, Westcode has no plans
to develop OC for X, and last I checked in, it appeared that KQ was
heading the same direction. Further, I'm hearing (not just from Steve
H. but a number of OneClickers who've gone over) that Quickeys, already
a lesser program than its two main competitors (IMO), is significantly
underpowered on X relative to 9.
I'd love to hear something from Apple about whether they intend for this
sort of resource driving to go away, or to be feasible, possibly under a
totally new structure.
I know Apple wants to get away from the resource fork idea to be more
compatible with other systems, but the general idea of resources
separately editable from code with standard editors is so powerful and
appealing to hackers and CS purists alike (It may be the greatest
contribution to the computing world of Mac OS) that it would be utterly
tragic to abandon it entirely, while Apple yet lives. It is utterly
amazing to me that some similar idea did not catch on universally in
OSs. The only explanation I can come up with is that too few people
ever really understood it. It strikes me that some OS wide standard
method for encoding resources and data into a single fork (not to
mention metadata, like Type/Creator, and the various finder flags) is
the right answer and ought to be in the cards and made invisible to the
user. Even developers who don't need to support mac files on the PC, or
write compilers and resource editors shouldn't have the operations be
invisible.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT email@hidden