Re: "a reference to"
Re: "a reference to"
- Subject: Re: "a reference to"
- From: has <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:44:04 +0000
On 7 Jan 2008, at 14:55, Jon Pugh wrote:
At 6:19 AM -0500 1/7/08, Mark J. Reed wrote:
It's the invisible "get" that gets you.
Technically, that's not AppleScript's fault per se, it's an
application foible,
'Implicit gets' are entirely an AppleScript feature, and nothing to do
with scriptable applications. The reason for their inclusion is that
they make AppleScript "easier" to use, at least in the most common use
cases. However, they are as much a menace as a benefit in the long
run, since:
1. AppleScript does not apply implicit gets in the less common use
cases, and:
2. their invisible nature means that users cannot obviously see - and
thereby understand - why their code fails in some cases, because their
experience of the common-case behaviour has given them a faulty
understanding of how AppleScript and Apple event IPC actually work.
This is the basic problem with lying to users, even with the best of
intentions. Sooner or later, those lies _will_ catch them out, leaving
them in a worse position than if they'd been given the truth to begin
with. Not only do they need to learn how the language actually works,
they have to:
1. throw away their existing, faulty knowledge first - something
that's often difficult for people to do [1]; and:
2. acquire this new knowledge _despite_ the language's concerted
attempts to mislead them at every turn.
Sure, learning the honest, if slightly ugly, truth requires a bit more
up-front work, but at least once that's done things are
straightforward thereafter with no nasty hidden traps to spring up
later on and catch out the unwary. It's just a question of trading a
little short-term pain for a long-term gain, rather than the
ultimately false economy of the current arrangement where a little
short-term gain is had at the cost of a long-term pain.
...
Unfortunately, I don't think the AppleScript engineers - blessed as
they are with their extensive inside knowledge of AppleScript et-al -
have any idea just how difficult it is for end users to form an
accurate and robust understanding of these technologies [2]. If
anything, their current thinking seems to be that the solution to the
current problem is to slap more fibs and obfuscations on top of it,
presumably in the belief that this will eventually make it completely
unnecessary for users to know anything about the actual mechanics
involved.
However, while it's true that the late, great computer scientist David
Wheeler did indeed once state that:
"Any problem in computer science can be solved with another layer of
indirection."
it might be wise to not to overlook his immediate "But that usually
will create another problem" rejoinder to this line.
Or, as another wise old engineer once put it:
"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up
the drain."
has
[1] Humans have a tendency to cling tightly to their established
knowledge, resisting any change even if and after that knowledge has
been demonstrated to be wrong. Hardly a characteristic that an
ostensibly pedagogical platform should actively invite, IMNHO.
[2] Hint: "Massive pain in the arse".
--
http://appscript.sourceforge.net
http://rb-appscript.rubyforge.org
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden