Re: Word scripting?
Re: Word scripting?
- Subject: Re: Word scripting?
- From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:20:08 +1100
On 25/3/03 11:13 AM +1000, Paul Berkowitz, email@hidden, wrote:
>
Anybody can imagine anything. What's that got to do with it?
>
It has everything to do with your argument about matching the object model
being the problem. They've done that part already.
>
I'm not a C++ developer, or whatever it is they program Word in. I haven't a
>
clue what it is that's going wrong under the surface, and I'd be very
>
surprised if you did either.
>
But you keep referring to matching the object model, and that can clearly be
done.
>
The main reason for having Word, rather than another word processor, on the
>
Mac, is its interoperability with Word Windows.
>
That's the main reason for some people, but certainly not for all.
>
Word is _extremely_ complex. Its documents are coded as binary files, not text
>
files. I'm sure that the conversion to something that can respond to the Text
>
Suite is not child's play. There's lots of programming code that they have to
>
port from the Windows version as changes are made there, which probably
>
muddled all the little gimmicks they put into Word 4 and 5 (which is when
>
AppleScript worked - it went bad in Word 6, not in Word 2001) to fit with the
>
AppleScript Text Suite.
>
I've got Word 5.1 still installed here, and it say it's unscriptable. As for
all the "gimmicks", that's beside the point -- I'm not suggesting that the
problem is that every feature is not scriptable. The problem is that basic
things that are feasible according to the AS dictionary, like trying to move
a paragraph, or insert a word -- very simple things -- often just don't
work.
>
> Again: it doesn't work because someone couldn't be bothered making it work.
>
> All the talk of invisible characters and matching object models is at best a
>
> distraction.
>
>
>
No it isn't. All your talk is hot air, because, like me, you have no idea how
>
much labour would be involved.
>
You're muddying the issue again. You keep saying it's probably so much work
because it's such a complex app. I say the complexity is to some extent
irrelevant.
It may be a big job, but clearly when someone went to the effort of
developing what I think you'll agree is a fairly detailed object model and
dictionary -- there's a fair bit of Word-specific stuff in there -- we can
presume they had some idea of what would be involved to make it actually
work. I very much doubt that they decided to develop an object model and put
the dictionary in the code without considering what would be involved in
making it work. They didn't just throw their hands up and say, "We can't do
it, the app's just too complex."
The project was started, and at some stage presumably abandoned. Maybe they
underestimated the complexity, or maybe when things got to the pointy end,
it was one of the things they decided they'd have to drop. The fact that the
dictionary stayed in, and that some parts of it actually work on a good day,
suggests to me that the latter was more likely the case. Am I being
unreasonable? The alternative, I guess, is to argue that they deliberately
set out to mislead, and I don't buy that.
>
The Mac Business Unit is pretty small, you know.
>
So I keep hearing. I also keep hearing it's very profitable. Apparently it's
part of a very profitable business.
>
When MS designed VBA for Office Windows, they probably had teams of 15 working
>
on the VBA for each of Word, Excel, PPT. They don't have anywhere near that
>
many developers for all of the 3 apps combined, let alone just for
>
AppleScript.
>
I understand that. But I also understand that there are lots of other
developers out there who can make the same argument. There probably aren't a
lot of people on the Final Cut Pro team, or on the other teams producing
software at Apple. Do we accept that as an excuse for Apple's patchy
performance? Or any other company's?
>
Nevertheless, I believe that they do understand that AppleScript is important
>
on the Mac, and that they're doing something about it for future releases.
>
Good. Perhaps they won't object to the occasional reminder.
>
There's no point bandying slogans about now.
>
Who's bandying slogans?
--
Shane Stanley, email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.