Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>> Now, what about the folks who are complete >> newcomers to Python and/or to programming in general?
Actually, writing Automator actions is probably always going to be too difficult for that class of "users" (scripters). Even the AppleScript variety is rather complex for such users - lots of different apps and techniques.
Forget about application scripting here: it's totally tangental to the main topic, which is can/should MacPython provide a newbie-friendly system for writing Actions using Python? There's a huge range of tasks Automator Actions could be written to perform that have absolutely nothing to do with application scripting, and for just about any of those Python is far better than AppleScript. Python's hardly the ideal end-user language either, regardless of what its more enthusiastic envangelists might like to claim, but in many respects it's 'good enough'. Like I say, if complete n00bs can pick up enough ActionScript or JavaScript to be a danger to the web, they can grok enough Python to knock some holes in their desktops if they want to too.
It's probably on a par with AppleScript Studio [...] And most applescripters won't even go near Studio because it's "too difficult".
Y'know what this says to me? "Opportunity."
Indeed, Studio IS "too difficult" for many novice scripters: that's because it's a quick-n-dirty low-budget lash-up between Cocoa, Xcode and AppleScript, and miles away from a proper end-user oriented environment such as Hypercard. Yet people use it anyway because while it's fairly sucky at ease-of-use, it's still less sucky than anything else available at the same price point (free). Meanwhile, Studio alternatives such as Revolution and RB prove that significanlty lower suckiness _is_ achievable: RunRev & RB users ain't paying that premium price for nothing.
So all you gotta do to beat Studio is provide something that's a decent bit less sucky than it is (which may or may not be easy, but it's certainly not impossible) while still holding the same price point (something OSS is reknowned for). Whether or not it's an opportunity worth taking - e.g. could the rewards justify the investment? - is another question. But on the technical side at least it seems likely that Apple's left a noticeable window of opportunity for anyone brave and/or foolish to try claiming it.
The idea here is to develop Automator actions so that _end users_ can automate with complete ease and simplicity, not to make the writing of actions simple.
False dichotomy. While I absolutely agree with the first, I see absolutely no reason why writing actions should not also be made as simple as possible. Otherwise you might as well argue that there's no point in creating languages like Python because you can already program anything in C.
I would agree with Bob that you'd do better to concentrate on doing things right. The applescript code is simpler than ObjC for anyone who's done AppleScript, but not for those who haven't.
Well, Action entry and exit points are pretty easy to nail: the AppleScript Action API already does that. Obviously, any folks with Tiger seeds can't discuss NDA'd details with those who don't, so for now a public analysis of the existing UI interaction model and brainstorming of possible better alternatives isn't yet an option. So this thread's really just to get the creative juices woken up; prehaps someone with a seed copy'll decide to pursue it a bit further in private just now, or we can take it to the next stage on-list as Apple releases more technical info into public.
Just never say never. (Hey, was a time when you and me didn't know squat about AppleScript 'n Python 'n programming and stuff either - and just look where we are now! End-user's just another potential developer in-waiting, s'all...;)
Cheers,
has -- http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/ _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
