Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
- Subject: Re: Nice Automator article on O'Reilly
- From: "John C. Welch" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 14:23:22 -0500
On 5/6/05 11:20, "has" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>> "officially approved" VB-equivalent platform.
>>
>> VB however, is NOT an end user language.
>>
>> The idea that you can create a language that will perfectly satisfy both
>> programmers and non-programmers is a chimera.
>
> Umm, this was exactly my point. Right now we've got Automator at one end, ObjC
> at the other and AppleScript in the middle, and that Apple needs to replace
> that one language in the middle with two new ones: one to cater to pro and
> semi-pro developers, the other to cater specifically to end-users. AppleScript
> doesn't satisfy either requirement terribly well. (BTW, anyone about to tell
> me that AS is a good end-user language, please spend some time actually
> researching the subject first. Because I have, and while AppleScript may be
> marginally nearer to that goal than more geek-oriented language it is still a
> long, long way away from what a real end-user language should be.)
I haven't seen anything that's better enough than applescript at the task of
the end user language. Pretty much anything with dot notation is right out.
Dot notation makes perfect sense to programmers, but it's gobbledlygook to
non-programmers. I've spent two decades watching people's reaction to dot -
notation, I'm on firm ground with that reaction. Once they make the mental
switch to become a programmer, then it's easy.
There's no need to create AppleScript Basic and AppleScript Pro. For one, it
wouldn't work anyway. You'd need to have consistent syntax, otherwise you
have two separate languages. We have that now. There's no point in
reinventing that wheel.
There is a need to refine applescript. End user languages will never be good
as general programming languages, and the reverse is true. AppleScript does
a better job of serving two masters than anything I've seen outside of 100%
GUI drag and drop flowchart tools, such as Prograph or Edify, and having
built systems in Edify at least, even full-on GUI tools aren't as easy as
they initially look. A flowchart of 1"x1" squares that is 40' long and 10'
high is JUST as hard to read without knowing the syntax as any other complex
program in any other language. Probably harder, because your brain keeps
thinking that visual = simple.
But that's programming. Doing simple stuff is, well, simple. Doing complex
stuff is well, complex. You can only hide that complexity up to a certain
point before you create MORE complexity trying to hide it. Windows' UI and
Wizards are a great example of that. Could the language use improvement?
Sure. Could the documentation be better? Oh GOD yes. Is it so broken that it
needs to be chucked and replaced with <product> that doesn't exist and is
based on requirements that will never be consistent enough to allow it to be
developed in the next decade? Hell no.
If needing a lot of improvement was grounds for dumping something, we
wouldn't have Mac OS X, Perl 5, PHP 5, etc. You'll note of course that every
tool worth using has had growth pains. AppleScript's has been exacerbated by
inattention and occasional hostility from management, so it's taken longer,
that's all.
But if you hate it that much, why use it at all?
--
GO TEAM ACROBAT ! OUR MOTTO:
We hate you and we want you to die.
_______________________________________________
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