Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Pythonmac-SIG Digest, Vol 34, Issue 59

[Daniel Lord]

On Feb 11, 2006, at 6:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ronald Oussoren wrote: Totally off-topic, but if you'd move to setuptools you can keep several separate packages, but users could install using 'easy_install appscript' which would then take care of the dependencies for you. I think setuptools is going to be a great solution and definitely plan to more there eventually. For now though, the mpkg-based distribution provides a lower barrier to entry (one less thing to install first), and it's a familiar format to all Mac users. One of the obvious audiences for appscript is existing AppleScripters, who aren't always overly enthusiastic about approaching unfamiliar technology, so it keeps things simple for them. Cheers, has --  http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/ this is a personal opinion so I don't expect consensus. I _like_ appscript. A lot. HAS did a great job with it. And while I like the power of Apple Events, I do not like Applescript--the syntax is not standard by design--it varies from application to application which in theory means flexibility but in practice means entropy and chaos. And some application developers cannot even get the AETE right and so their scripting is broken or at least crippled. Applescript does not have decent control structures nor regular _expression_ support. Its file system syntax is horrific. I applaud the idea and the 'dream'--it just fell far short in practice. So using Python or Perl, whose syntax and language elements don't vary much from application to application is much better. The objects can vary--just not how to address them. I have used Mac::Glue with Perl, appscript with Python satisfactorily though I wish Apple would build in Apple Event support for those languages.

_______________________________________________
Pythonmac-SIG maillist  -  Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig