> 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.