> 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.

As always, your comments are appreciated. The contributions of Satimage are
wonderful and your company is clearly staffed by bright and talented people.

I do wish that sometime the general computer publishing world or Mac
publishing world would do a substantive article about Satimage.

I think the story of what Satimage does is powerful in itself, and the more
general story of what can be done with Applescript technology is also
important.