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: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:08:02 +0100
Timothy Bates wrote:
>OS-X rocks. Applescript is stagnant by comparison. There's only so long you
>can wait to be able to add a gui to your scripts, interface with to the web,
>access a decent function library, have native key:value data types, built in
>database access, etc etc. before just giving up and moving to something like
>php to get your work done because it already has all this.
Moved to Python myself. Figured it'd be easier to fix Python's relative deficiencies than AppleScript's, and while it's taken a bit <cough> longer than intended I reckon I was right. (Of course, it'd probably help if I wasn't such a lousy programmer or inherently lazy sod; but hey, I may not be fast but I do get there eventually.;)
>Trouble is that you then lose all the intrinsic memorability of applescript
AppleScript's syntax is very nice to read, but unfortunately its looks comes at very high cost. PHP syntax may be ugly as sin, but at least it's regular, robust and unambiguous. I do think it's possible to have a syntax with all the readability of AppleScript's while also being regular, robust and unambiguous; just not in any source code-based language. As I say in my other post, the future for end-user languages lies elsewhere.
>as well as application control.
Being dealt with. Python's application scripting support is just about done, PHP's is started; Tcl is doing all manner of interesting things, etc. Always room for more hands, of course.
Cheers,
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