At 1:18 PM -0700 4/24/08, Bruce Robertson wrote:
>  > 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.

<blush>forwarded to the team</blush>

Thanks, Bruce :-)
Emmanuel