Re: TextEdit, is it really that lame?
Re: TextEdit, is it really that lame?
- Subject: Re: TextEdit, is it really that lame?
- From: Bill Briggs <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:39:03 -0400
At 7:35 PM -0600 3/7/06, John C. Welch wrote:
>On 3/7/06 19:29, "Bill Briggs" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> Word's scriptability is less lame and more very, very, odd, but that's a
>>> situation imposed by having to server two masters. It's gotten better, as
>>> v.X's was really quite unusable.
>>
>> I do have a copy of it on my PowerBook, only because the university has a
>> site license for it (I would never have bought it) and I from time to time
>> have to open an Excel spreadsheet, so I installed the whole suite. But looking
>> at the dictionary and seeing commands like "create new mailing label
>> document" that have a command and what should be an object all in a very long
>> command don't really inspire confidence in the way it has been done. I take it
>> that you mean it has to satisfy the Javascript OM on Windows, which perverts
>> it in the AppleScript domain.
>
>VBA's object model actually, but yes, that's the reason why. They don't have the luxury or manpower to duplicate both implementations
Yes, VBA. My bad. I've had Javascript on the brain for a couple of weeks for another little project. But you know what I meant.
- web
_______________________________________________
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