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
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 19:25:31 EST
This thread has gone on too long to not chime in : )
1) Since Applescript is digital duct tape, it is 100% appropriate that it
have the ability to access the shell.
2) Since "do shell script" is here to stay, and will in all likelihood be a
significant feature of Applescript in the years to come, then I strongly
encourage the Applescript/OS team to do Whatever It Takes(TM) to make it as
speedy as possible. My testing (G4/400 OSX 10.1.2) shows that each shell call
has an overhead of about 0.10 seconds. This just ain't good enough for
anything repetitive (as Chris Nebel has acknowledged). I don't know what
technical barriers there are, but getting the overhead down to at most 0.005
seconds per call would seem a good goal. 0.001 seconds would be better still.
3) I certainly hope that industrial strength functionality of "do shell
script" won't cause the degradation of the English-like syntax of
Applescript. I hope the most popular functionality of the shell makes its way
into an osax.
4) Does anyone know a way to do the reverse of "do shell script," that is,
call an Applescript handler and use the response in the shell?
Jeff Baumann
email@hidden
www.linkedresources.com
>
On 02/01/2002 20:09, "Jon Pugh" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> I think my largest point here is that in Mac OS 9, the simplest way to add
>
> functionality to AppleScript was to write a scripting addition instead of
an
>
> application. Now, in Mac OS X, applications are theoretically easier to
>
> write, and scripting additions can generally be replaced by calls to the
>
> shell, since they are generally doing simple things that can't be done in
>
> straight AppleScript. That means the incentive to write a new scripting
>
> addition in OS X is fairly low, as a built-in workaround is pretty easy,
>
> considering.
And in a message dated 2/2/02 11:04:34 AM, John C. Welch wrote:
>
Actually, I think that creating AppleScript Wrappers around shell commands
>
is a very good thing for a few reasons:
>
>
1) It uses what is already there. As Jon pointed out, the idea for OSAX is
>
to give you the ability to do things you normally cannot do with
>
AppleScript. They should not be duplicating existing capabilities. As well,
>
reinventing the wheel is usually more work than it's worth
>
>
2) It gives AppleScript *far* more value as a system maintenance tool. I
>
mean systems maintenance. If I can use familiar syntax to get things done in
>
the shell env., then I get to use AppleScript to run my sun boxes, my AIX
>
boxes, etc.
>
>
3) It also helps calm down the current idiotic religious war about
>
AppleScript v. Shell. They both have their places, but if it gives both
>
groups better insight into the value of the other groups tools, then things
>
get a bit more civil. No, it won't stop the wars, but for those folks who
>
aren't complete fanatics, it gives them a path out.
>
>
john
>
>
>
--
>
"Not by strength, but by guile"
>
- British Special Boat Service (SBS)