Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:08:42 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 12:30 PM -0700 4/24/08, Bruce Robertson wrote:
>What's the level of effort required? Any chance you'd turn it over to
>somebody else; or do something like get a hold of Seattle Xcoders (dBug
>programming SIG) and see if somebody there wants to tackle it or assist?
One reason - in my opinion - why it's not a rewarding job to write
Scripting Additions:
1/ Apple never says in advance what new features they will program
into the next OS version (which is normal),
2/ Apple does not care much about the small fish among developers
(which is normal),
3/ Apple is committed to improve their products as much as possible,
so, the more useful your osax' features, the higher the odds that
Apple will program them into the next OS, and that your osax' value
will instantly get close to $0.
Several on this list know the pain of *that kind* of new feature.
That's why using an enriched AppleScript environment, maintained for
its own use by an industrial company, like Smile provides for free,
is a route many productive scripters have chosen. I chose not to bug
this list too often with "why not use Smile" posts, but a large
fraction of the questions on this list or the other one are answered
in Smile.
Emmanuel
Satimage-software, http://www.satimage-software.com, and now also
Quomodo, http://www.quomodo.com, the AppleScript-based web 2.0 site.
|
|
|