On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Emmanuel wrote:

> At 10:54 PM +0100 4/21/05, has wrote:
>> AppleScript's unicode support is buggy.
>>     [respectfully snipped]
>> Consider using something like Perl or Python when working with  
>> unicode text
>
> Well, has, AppleScript's numerics support is buggy, AppleScript's
> records support is buggy, even AppleScript's ASCII files support is
> buggy, we can't yet say that AppleScript's XML support is buggy but
> unfortunately we probably shall, I agree. Yet this does not make a
> reason to advise using something else.
>
> AppleScript is the InterApplication Communication Language - and the
> very core of AppleScript is not very buggy. AppleScript is a great
> language, but it's not Another Universal Programming Language [With
> All Bells and Whistles Built-in]. Like you have modules in Python, in
> AppleScript you have Scripting Additions, and AppleScript provides a
> powerful and smooth way to have Scripting Additions - and other
> software agents as well - collaborate.
>
> Namely, I think we would help more the AppleScript community if we
> advised "AppleScript's built-in Unicode support is buggy, so consider
> finding a Scripting Addition or an application able of Unicode [*and
> continue enjoying the numerous advantages of AppleScript*]", and so
> would be my humble plea that you consider doing.
>
> Logically, each time we're comparing AppleScript vs Python, we should
> either compare AppleScript to Python without any module, or we should
> compare Python to AppleScript as enriched with the whole collection
> of scriptable applications, libraries - including your own - and
> Scripting Additions available.
>
> Emmanuel
>
See TextCommands a scriptable faceless background application, just  
encountered it. FBA's are better than Scripting Additions since they  
do not cause name conflicts etc..


http://osaxen.com/files/textcommands1.0.1.html
s"A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."   Paul Romer   Stanford  
economist