Re: Dictionary possibilities [Re: Interesting... AppleScript X ??]
Re: Dictionary possibilities [Re: Interesting... AppleScript X ??]
- Subject: Re: Dictionary possibilities [Re: Interesting... AppleScript X ??]
- From: Michael Kelly <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:38:30 -0700
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 03:00:41PM -0700, Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>
On 9/27/02 2:19 PM, "Michael Kelly" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Very good idea, but couldn't this also be done with plaintext source? My point
>
> is that the user should be allowed complete choice as to what editor they want
>
> to use, which would require plaintext source.
>
>
Why would it require plain text source? I can open Script Editor compiled
>
scripts and applets in Script Debugger and Smile with no problem, and
>
vice-versa if the scripts aren't longer than the absurd 32K limit in SE.
>
>
I'm sure that if SE changed its format, the other editors would very soon
>
accommodate themselves.
My only point with plaintext/plain-text/plain text source is, as Michael
Sullivan said, that _any_ text editor could edit it. I suppose I have a bit of a
prejudice against any language that can't be written in BBEdit or vi, but that's
just me.
Not having any real experience or knowledge in the area, I won't even pretend to
know what I'm talking about in regards to the performance, ease of development,
etc, of plaintext source vs. some open binary format. I'll just nod and say
"yes"... :)
I should just accept that Apple knows what it's doing and will make good
decisions. Then again, they're the company that gave us the bouncing dock
icon... (not trying to open up any new issues, there)
In short, I've just taken 3 paragraphs to say "you guys are way over my head,
I'll go back to lurking now" ;)
--
Michael
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.