Re: collectdata
Re: collectdata
- Subject: Re: collectdata
- From: "Stockly, Ed" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:07:49 +0000
- Thread-topic: collectdata
If you want to preserve AppleScript syntax, and the English like
readability of your scripts and still get the benefit of using
AppleScriptObjC (and shell scripting), then I think the best approach is
the one Shane and Has are using with their libraries.
Put the AppleScriptObjC, and other complicated syntax in a library with a
dictionary and with an appleScript library to call them with plain vanilla
appleScript (maybe one day I'll figure out how to do this myself).
The second best approach (which I am starting to use for shell scripts and
AppleScriptObjC) is to put those calls in dedicated handlers and put those
handler in appleScript libraries.
The third best approach (which I have been using for shell scripts and
recently AppleScriptObjC) is to put those calls in dedicated handlers in
your scripts.
On 3/8/17, 6:34 PM,
"applescript-users-bounces+ed.stockly=email@hidden on
behalf of Shane Stanley"
<applescript-users-bounces+ed.stockly=email@hidden on
behalf of email@hidden> wrote:
>On 9 Mar 2017, at 7:37 am, Thomas Fischer <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> AppleScript (as I cherish it) comes with a promise of readability and
>>accessibility that I can’t find in AppleScriptObjC.
>
>AppleScriptObjC isn't what was the originators of AppleScript had in
>mind, certainly. But then they probably didn't envisage the rather
>parlous reality we have today, with incomplete and broken
>implementations, if any, the norm.
>
>Nonetheless AppleScript has always been a minimalist language, relying on
>outside help to get things done. I don't think there'd be too many people
>who would dispute that adding the "do shell script" command to the
>language was anything but a boon. AppleScriptObjC goes a step further and
>uses AppleScript terminology and bridges common classes.
>
>Of course, all things being equal, I'd much rather use plain AppleScript
>(and with fixes for its many problems). It's just that things are not
>always equal. Stuff isn't accessible -- basics like tags in the Finder
>for example -- and stuff is buggy -- System Events can't even get file
>names right. And sometimes time matters -- a lot of the implementations
>are too slow.
>
>> No, that’s not AppleScript for me.
>
>I wish I could afford to be such a purist...
>
>--
>Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
><www.macosxautomation.com/applescript/apps/>, <latenightsw.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
>Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>imes.com
>Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
>
>This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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