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