Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
- Subject: Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
- From: has <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 21:30:54 +0100
Martin Orpen wrote:
> > For someone who has used X-code before, but for those of us who have
> > not touched it, it assumes a lot of knowledge that we don't have.
>
>Don't say I didn't warn you in the thread "The future for AppleScript".
>
>The only thing that you can do with Automator if you *only* know AppleScript
>is to get it to run an AppleScript.
Actually, you can do rather a lot with Automator even if you _don't_ know AppleScript. Which is completely the point of it.
>You need *AppleScript Studio* knowledge to create actions.
Writing Actions isn't for everyone. I think folk should be grateful to Apple for setting the bar as low as they have by providing not just one but two separate Automator APIs.
>And, most alarmingly, application developers can provide Automator support
>using obj-c, save themselves the time it takes to create an AS dictionary -
>yet still provide some degree of scriptability. This worries me.
I'm sure you worry too much. I'm sure this has been said already, but to reiterate: application developers get nothing for free. However they do it, it's going to take work to implement. If they use an Automator-only approach, they'll be investing all that work in a tightly coupled solution with restricted functionality and flexibility as Automator, while a very good solution to a certain set of problems, is strictly limited in what it can do. Using Apple event IPC to connect their Actions to their application is probably one of the most cost-effective approaches given that it also has significant appeal outside of Automator as Apple events can also be used from any general-purpose programming environment that knows how to speak them. And even if some developers do initially provide Automator-only options, chances are this will only fuel user interest and demand in broader, more open automation support to be included in future.
>I'm keeping my eye on Pages. I bet it gets Automator support before it gets
>any AppleScript functions (if ever...). A page layout app that you can't
>script - how dumb is that?
Pages is currently at a 1.0 release. Apple's iApps have often lacked scripting interfaces in their 1.0 releases but gained them in subsequent releases. This is not at all unreasonable given that Apple, like any other company, has a limited amount of time and resources to spend on application development. Therefore they have two choices: either implement those essential features that will give the majority of users something to use right now and add less important/less demanded features in subsequent releases, or wait several years and only release once the application finally contains every possible feature anyone will ever need. One of these approaches is absolutely common sense, the other is not. And given scripting support is traditionally one of those things that that won't deliver the greatest bang for the buck in a v1.0, it's not unsurprising or unreasonable for it not to make the v1.0 cut.
If anything, it's probably better that Apple don't rush to add half-assed scripting support while simultaneously juggling a hundred other requirements for a pre-1.0 release, but wait till the initial chaos is out the way and take their time to do a [one can hope] proper job of it for v2.0. If you're really concerned about the state of scripting support in Apple's newest 1.0 apps, there are plenty of older Apple apps which could do with a bug report or ten filed against their current implementations before you need to start worrying about any new ones.
And if folk think application scripting support deserves a higher priority then I'm sure they know where Apple's feedback channels are.
Regards,
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden