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: Sat, 07 May 2005 17:45:12 -0500
On 5/7/05 15:33, "has" <email@hidden> wrote:
>> Do the same for a two - decades old platform in it's second incarnation,
>> still doing a LOT of bug shakeouts, with 25 million users or so,
>
> Interesting theory: the more users a system has, the harder it becomes to
> develop software for it. By that reasoning, software development for Windows
> must be logically impossible. Oh noes, somebody tell B1LL G@T35!
Nice strawman, but I didn't say develop for. I said "Create a new language,
new environment for that language, and all the associated infrastructure for
officially supporting that language.
>
>
>> coming up with a way to have one-click migration of
>> all those workflows because if you have to rewrite the workflows in a new
>> language from scratch ANYWAY
>
> One: as I've said repeatedly, AppleScript would not go away any time soon: it
> would remain for legacy support just as Classic does. Users would be
> encouraged to do new projects in the new environment; their existing ones
> would stay where they are.
No one develops in a dead language, no one maintains in that either. The day
Apple says "AppleScript is a dead language in maintenance mode only,
development on it *stops*, and all resources now go into migration. How many
major vendors are still developing for Mac OS 9? Yeah, zero is a pretty cool
number. There's no ROI whatsover in continuing new work in a dead language.
So you have to deal with that. You have to have the migration path and the
rest of that support..which is a THIRD support arm....legacy support, new
support, migration support. These are non-trivial resources that Apple will
have to expend to kill Applescript.
> Two: It would also be trivial to provide two-way
> bridging between the new and old systems so that one can call handlers in the
> other and vice-versa (the new environment would be fully scriptable and
> attachable, just any good Mac application should). Three: if there really were
> significant demand for automated migration tools, put it on the TO DO list for
> version 2 or 3, or just call it a nice little opportunity for some
> enterprising ISV.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA...define "trivial" Man hours, real costs, all the
infrastructure. If it's so trivial, you should be able to do it easily.
>
>
>> How about Apple DOESN'T repeat the same mistake Microsoft is currently
>> making, hmm?
>
> Which one? The one where, after a decade investing vast amounts of resources
> in maintaining painstaking legacy support they reach the point of diminishing
> returns where the cost of users throwing tantrums for a year or two due to
> starting over with a clean slate is now less than the cost of digging
> themselves much further into that hole. Users _always_ whine when things
> change. But after a while they tend to discover that the new way is actually
> far better than the old way, and quietly shut up. (Hell, I've done it myself
> often enough.) Microsoft will be just fine, and in a few years most folk will
> have forgotten their initial upset as nothing more than an embarrassing little
> storm in a teacup. A big long-term gain often justifies a bit of short-term
> pain - just ask Apple.
Actually, it's not a minor issue. It's costing them a lot of money, time and
effort. Microsoft is also what, 6 times bigger than Apple? They have cash to
spend on this. They have a lot more people, and I'll bet their developer
support population is probably bigger than Apple's Infinite Loop workforce.
Secondly, for 90% of the enterprise, dumping MS is not an option. It
approaches impossible from a feasibility viewpoint. For almost any company,
dumping Apple is not NEARLY as hard a decision. In fact, for most, it's just
training and new gear. The infrastructure's already there. So MS can afford
to piss people off. Apple can't.
As well, "They did this really in a really stupid way, and a decade from
now, it will all be fine" is a really lame justification for making the same
mistake.
>> Has, I love you. Dearly.
>
> Trust me, it's not reciprocated. You get my goat. (But hey, nothing motivates
> me better.)
>
Sarcasm, it's your friend.
>
>> You stop at the language, and that's the end of
>> your world. None of the other implementation issues exist to you, so
>> everything can be done in a week by a 16 year old.
>>
>> Of course, that's completely incorrect, and inaccurate, but I do love the
>> simplicity of your universe. If only the rest of the world were that simple.
>
> Oh dear, you've now exceeded your reactionary hyperbole and diversionary
> strawmen quota for the month. Colour me trolled, but I'm outta here.
>
You keep saying this is all trivial to do, yet the real world is showing you
to be incorrect. If you don't like being incorrect, then stop saying this
kind of thing is trivial to do. It is not even close.
john
--
"Tracers work both ways."
US Army Ordnance.
_______________________________________________
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