Re: To shell or not to shell (was Re: URL Access Redux)
Re: To shell or not to shell (was Re: URL Access Redux)
- Subject: Re: To shell or not to shell (was Re: URL Access Redux)
- From: "John C. Welch" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 16:24:43 -0500
- Thread-topic: To shell or not to shell (was Re: URL Access Redux)
On 5/23/06 15:26, "Stockly, Ed" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Sure shell syntax is weird. SO'S APPLESCRIPT. So's
>>>> every.other.programming.language.
>
> My point is that this particular forum is a list for AppleScript, not
> every.other.programming.language. It's the AppleScript list and better or
> worse, a pervsion or emulation, this list is the place for AppleScript
> disussion.
So "do shell script", osacompile, and osascript are now verboten because
they don't pass some purity test?
>
>>>> You're kvetching about hard to master commands? Oh please, tell how you
>>>> mastered the full use of script objects and libraries in five minutes
>>>> without any kind of reference, and I'll show you my new pet monkey. It
>>>> flies, and it just came out of my butt.
>
> How about if I tell you how an appleScripter can master scripting nearly any
> application that has a well-designed appleScript implementations in a matter
> of minutes (most applications with poorly designed implementations don't take
> that much longer).
Bulldookey. In five minutes, create a script that takes a complex word
document with linked indexes, tables, TOCs and tables of figures, and using
only AppleScript, create a structured PDF that is a perfect replica of that
Word file. In five minutes.
>
> My complaint isn't that shell scripts are hard to master. It's that an
> appleScript user with little or moderate experience would be frightened away
> if they came to this list for answers and saw the shell script syntax
> (gibberish to the untrained eye).
Nonsense. If the person posting it takes the time to explain what's going
on, and how each statement works, it's no more "frightening" than
AppleScript or English.
>
> I've taught several appleScript classes and scripters I've referred to this
> list have told me that they thought the discussion was too advanced for them.
> I think that's a reaction to shell scripting.
So all the advanced scripters should stop thinking like advanced scripters
and only provide solutions that someone with no experience in scripting or
programming whatsoever can totally understand in five minutes? Yeah, that
will make for a useful list.
>
>>>> The idea that AppleScript is some bastion of self-documenting code is a
>>>> myth that should be put down like a rabid dog. I guarantee you, it's just
>>>> as arcane as shell. You just like it more.
>
> Yes, yes, I do like it more, and, again, when an application has a well
> designed appleScript implementation, yes, it can be a bastion of
> self-documenting scripting.
That's a self documenting library, and that's just as big a myth. Nothing is
self documenting other than the person making with the typing and the
thinking.
> But again, that's not the point. The point is that
> this is the AppleScript list. I wouldn't go to a shell scripting list to get
> answers to AppleScript questions. And I wouldn't go to a shell scripting list
> and answer every question with a "here's how to do it better with appleScript"
> solution even though I much prefer appleScript. (But, if the best solution to
> a particular question was AppleScript, I would refer the user here.)
And what if the ONLY solution is a combination of both?
"Well, here's part of it, but thanks to Ed's new purity test, you'll have to
get the rest from another list. Have a nice day"
>>>> If I'd had your attitude, I'd STILL be waiting for a way to script
>>>> Antivirus scans and link the shell component of Virex to folder actions
>>>> attached to the desktop. But instead, a flexible attitude gave me that
>>>> ability *five years ago*.
>
> No disagreement there either... although I'm not really waiting for those
> things, I don't believe I need them. If you truly had my attitude you'd be
> procrastinating over taking the Unix/Unix scripting class at the local
> community college. (A class like that makes sense for shell scripting, but it
> wouldn't make sense for AppleScript)
Obviously, I'm more pragmatic about such things, since I wrote that script
for Virex in 2002, and posted it to versiontracker a year later, in 2003.
The fact that YOU don't need them doesn't make them not useful to others.
The fact that you view shell as a blight on the purity of AppleScript
doesn't make it so.
>
>>>>> I'll take do shell script and network setup, and while you're locked into
>>>>> only running a script on logged in systems, I just scripted Apple Remote
>>>>> Desktop with some shell action, and set up 200 machines faster than you
>>>>> can set up one.
>
> Hey, more power to you and Bravo for shell scripting. Seriously. I have
> nothing against shell scripting and have used it myself (even though I'm
> clearly in over my head when I do).
>
> My point is that the AppleScript users list should support AppleScript users
> first and provide AppleScript solutions to AppleScript questions and also
> support new users. If a solution REQUIRES shell scripting beyond the simplest
> do shell script command, I think the user should be referred to the
> MacScripter list, which is not a dedicated appleScripting list, but a general
> Mac Scripting list, which includes appleScript and shell scripting.
Then shut this list down. Because that's going to make it a PR vehicle, not
a proper scripting/programming support list. No one needs a PR vehicle that
is more concerned with "maintaining the purity of the language" than
"providing a wealth of solutions for problems".
Purity jihads are always silly at best, dumb at worst. If someone is
providing good information that includes shell, GOOD FOR THEM. If someone
says "you don't need shell for that, here's the AppleScript solution, GOOD
FOR THEM TOO". That's even better, as now there's more than one solution to
the problem in one convenient place, instead of "Well, I can do that faster,
but it fails the purity test. You'll have to join a different list for
that".
--
"You humans call this thing a 'cursor' and you move it with 'mouse'! Bah!
A Klingon would not use such a device. We have a Karaghht-Gnot - which is
best translated as "An Aiming Daggar of 16x16 pixels" and we move it using
a Gshnarrrf which is a creature from the Klingon homeworld which posesses
just one, (disproportionately large) testicle...which it rubs along the
ground...a fearsome creature indeed.
_______________________________________________
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