>>me>>So, cosmically, doesn't that make it OUR fault?!?
>>deivy >>Ed, you might have written the above as a jest
yes...
>>deivy >>I liked the questions nevertheless. Again, as I pointed out earlier, not just I buy their (Apple's) computer but it is a major reason I will not jump ship.
Same here...
>>deivy >>So is it our fault? >>deivy >>I do not believe in "faults" in this case.
Couldn't agree more and couldn't care less about who's "fault" this particular inconvenience is.
Even the OP on this thread had already found a way around this issue and had a found a fairly workable solution.
Once you've encountered a terminology conflict they become easier and easier to recognize and easier to workaround and after a while you forget the minor headaches they used to cause.
Maybe it's good for someone to complain to apple about all the failings of appleScript, but most of us just develop workarounds and strategies to use the language and the technologies and get on with our scripting.
Somewhere there's a balance between demanding perfection and putting up with these minor problems.
> deivy >AS is an enabling tool. In my case very enabling. >>I understand this. In some ways, I fully agree with some of has' criticism, in others I do not. >>I do not expect AS to be what it is not. >>Well, sometimes, but for me, even these times are very "enabling".
Very well put. I too often agree with has' criticisms and others and learn from them. (I more often disagree with their conclusions or suggested solutions).
>>me>>"Maybe coming up with workarounds and going on with our scripting, building our workflows and automating our solutions is enabling Apple ?"
>>deivy>>I understand the tone of the question,
yes, it was also in jest
>> deivy >>however, in spite of that, I believe that the fact that developers (but not Apple :( ) implement AS in their applications is a testament to the "enabling" power of AS.
so ... we're enabling Apple ... to enable the developers ... to enable US?
Whoa!
: ) ES =
|