Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
- Subject: Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
- From: Christopher Nebel <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:59:16 -0700
On May 4, 2005, at 4:56 PM, Martin Orpen wrote:
Michelle has rightly pointed out that the information posted by
Matt Neuberg is certainly *AppleScript-Like* - but it isn't really
AppleScript is it? There's AppleScript in it, but it's wrapped in
something pretty foreign-looking to people who only use Script
Editor. So, it would be more honest to call it an Xcode project
with some AppleScript thrown in.
Well, if you define "AppleScript" as "the language plus Script
Editor", then yes, you don't -- and in fact, can't -- write actions
in "AppleScript". However, Script Editor simply doesn't have the
features necessary -- if nothing else, it lacks an interface editor.
We've known for some time that Xcode has many features that people
coming from Script Editor may never use. Some sort of intermediate
product -- more capable than Script Editor, but less complex than
Xcode -- has been discussed, but so far it's taken a back seat to
other things, notably Automator itself. Really, if you can resist
the urge to poke every control, Xcode is not that hard to deal with.
[S]omebody at Apple has come up with a brilliant idea of re-
launching the humble Apple event and a simple way of using it in
the form of Automator. I think that [Automator] is as good an idea
as AppleScript was, but I personally don't find it half as
appealing. An AppleScript dictionary is so much more *interesting*
to look at than a fixed Automator Action. ... AppleScript meant
linking apps together in ways that people didn't envisage when they
wrote the dictionary. Automator *may* mean linking apps together in
ways that other people have already placed limitations on.
Aha. This is an interesting point, and it's one that a coworker of
mine is fond of raising. I think of the problem in terms of
granularity: Automator actions are "bigger" than AppleScript
objects. This cuts both ways.
Think of it in terms of Legos -- you've got regular bricks
(AppleScript) and the triple-size Duplo bricks (Automator). If you
want to extend the analogy, you might think of C/Obj-C as lots of the
little flat bricks. If what you need is a tower a foot tall, then
Duplos will get the job done faster. If, on the other hand, you need
a sphere, then the regular bricks will make a more precise sphere --
they're more flexible and detailed in what they can build. Both have
their advantages, so ideally you have both, and can even mix them.
Some review I read recently put it very nicely: Automator works great
*as long as there are actions to cover your needs.* If there aren't,
then you're probably stuck, because there's a big discontinuity
between using actions and writing them. AppleScript is much harder
to use, but you've got a lot more flexibility, assuming a decent
implementation.
Incidentally, the "someone" who came up with the idea was essentially
the AppleScript team. I think Chris Espinosa came up with the
original seed idea, and it evolved from there. There was another
fellow involved from outside the team -- in a curious coincidence, he
had completely independently been working on a graphical shell script
builder. Once we found out about each other, it was fairly obvious
that we should join forces.
--Chris Nebel
AppleScript and Automator Engineering
_______________________________________________
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