RE: Upgrade to 9.2, any advice?
RE: Upgrade to 9.2, any advice?
- Subject: RE: Upgrade to 9.2, any advice?
- From: "Stockly, Ed" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:32:07 -0800
>
>>I agree completely, and I am sorry I hadn't made that point more clearly in
my rant. Applescript is what I truly value in MacOS, and what I really wish
would get the serious resources (Good Heavens, iPhoto isn't even scriptable).
Apple seems to be following a very clear pattern here that seems to be working. It started with QuickTime which wasn't scriptable in its last major release but then Scriptability was added. iTunes was not scriptable in its initial release (even though the original application Apple purchased was) and the latest version is robustly scriptable.
I would expect the same thing to work out with iPhoto. Not scriptable in its initial release, and full scriptability within one or two incremental releases. While I think it would be cool if every application were fully scriptable in it's first release, I can certainly see the wisdom and value of the current development cycle.
>
>>>Chris Nebel, Chris Espinosa, Sal Soghian, et. al. are great, but they need
support from the top. They need to be higher on the food chain in Cupertino.
The food chain is unique at Apple. I think they eat different.
While I agree that the AppleScript team should get the highest possible priority, I'd also say that we AppleScripters should be pretty pleased with Apple's direction.
>
I think that OS X and its transition technologies such as Carbon are feats on par with the 68k->ppc transition.
>
>>This is NOT the comparison you want to make. The 68k-->PPC transition was a
massive foulup which almost killed Apple. This myth must end. Even Gil Amelio
owned up to it several years ago. If that is the standard to which Apple is
being held we're in serious trouble.
Gee I can't agree with anything in either of those quotes.
First, the transitionto OS X is not at all comparable to the processor transistion.
Second, I'd say the 68k-->PPC transition went very well and was NOT what almost killed Apple. For example, I'm still scripting with software written for 68k on G3 processors that I can run in classic and control OS X apps.
>
>>>Yes, if I wanted to buy OSX Server. The hobbyist has no opportunity to use
Applescript CGIs in OSX - the cost of entry is now $400 (WebSTAR V) and up. I
am not a hobbyist, and I may actually buy OSX Server, but there are so few
scripters doing CGI with Applescript that the talent pool will dry up
completely without them.
First, I highly recomend OSX Server for web development. AppleScript never really caught on as a web development language or technology. Part of that may have been Apple's fault. But, AppleScript is designed and purposed for Inter Application Communication. CGI scripting is a nice enhancement but their are many alternatives in that market.
>
> All I have wanted for the past 6 years is a Mac that won't
>
> crash and that behaves predictably.
>
Well, I can't quite vouch for the latter, but I know its getting there. But
>
I have yet to have OS X itself crash on me -- I've had apps galore blow up
>
and spew and die, but they've never affected any other open applications.
>
>>>I have personally seen 5 dead in the water unrecoverable crashes with OSX, <snip> <snip><snip> In practice, OSX is significantly less stable than MacOS 9.1.
Your mileage may very. I've had 5 crashes on one mac in one day on 8.x/9.x. I've personally seen only 1 OS X crash.
>
>>>My point is your point. I want more from Applescript (and MacOSX). Much more.
And I need reassurance that Apple's priorities match ours.
From my perspective I'd say your priorities are not the same as Apple's. Apple has designed AppleScript as an inter-application communication language and technology that can handle other tasks (such as CGI). You seem to need a CGI Scripting language and technology that can handle other tasks (such as interapplication communication).
ES