Re: Determining item number matching "x" in a list
Re: Determining item number matching "x" in a list
- Subject: Re: Determining item number matching "x" in a list
- From: Kai <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:05:05 +0000
on Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:29:52 +0000, Nigel Garvey
<email@hidden> wrote:
>
John Delacour wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:10:09 +0000:
>
>
>I really don't see the point of messing about with straight
>
>AppleScript when we have had perl as a resource on the Mac for years.
>
>MacPerl can just sit in the background as a resource and do just what
>
>perl does in OS 10. I can euqally well use MacPerl in Classic as
>
>perl.
>
>
I don't know about Emmanuel or Steve, but I'm still messing about with
>
the AppleScript alternatives here because the name of this list is
>
explicitly "AppleScript Users", not "Perl Users". Your shell scripts are
>
no doubt eminently practical and speedy solutions for people who just
>
want to be given scripts for particular jobs; but for those seeking to
>
understand the pros and cons of various techniques in AppleScript, a few
>
unexplained lines of Perl will do little to empower them. Since I haven't
>
seen any objections to the use of Perl on this list, I conclude that both
>
approaches are generally welcome.
Whatever works, I suppose - although I confess that my main reason for
coming here is to specifically develop my AppleScript abilities and, where I
can, help others do the same.
I've often used a 'marker' technique very similar to Nigel's suggestion -
for both indexing and sorting lists. However, I didn't realise that the use
of a script object could enhance performance in the way he demonstrated. So
I, for one, have learned something from the thread.
It seems reasonable to assume that some people come here looking for any
convenient solution that might fix a particular problem for them. However,
my impression is that many of us want to understand AppleScript better - and
learn how to use it more effectively to solve a variety of problems.
While I don't regard myself as a programmer, I've used a range of
programming environments to create solutions for a number of commercial
bodies and private individuals. Many of these clients have yet to make the
move to OS X. (They will - but when they're good and ready.) Few of them
have their SA and extension folders stuffed with third party OSAXen and
extensions, either. So a vanilla solution, wherever possible, is still
preferable in these circumstances.
Although having access to a range of programming options offers some very
positive advantages, I've found that - in order to cut through some script
bottleneck - the need to come up with a vanilla technique can often help to
enhance both my understanding and my creative use of AS.
In spite of certain frustrations, I actually enjoy working with AppleScript.
I like its 'human-like' approach to language. I like the kind of syntax
that's flexible enough to facilitate experimentation. For the most part, I
can even live with some of its consequent quirks and eccentricities! ;-)
It's good to learn about other ways to tackle a problem. This kind of
knowledge will undoubtedly encourage some of us to participate in other
groups that focus specifically on such alternatives.
At the same time, I don't believe it's particularly healthy to be too
dismissive of vanilla solutions - just because there might be another way to
do a job.
We've seen how initial enthusiasm for technologies like GUI Scripting can be
tempered by concerns that application developers might somehow regard them
as an excuse for not delivering a comprehensive set of AS features. In my
view, it would be a pity if Apple should consider it unnecessary to fill
some of the gaps in AS or to develop its capabilities further - simply
because of the possibilities opened up by access to other environments.
--
Kai
_______________________________________________
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.