Autocoding project proposal.

[Timothy Rue]

On 26-Jan-02 08:07:27 Jonathan Hogg <jonathan at onegoodidea.com> wrote:
>On 26/1/2002 6:44, in article 5372.791T2458T1516056threeseas at earthlink.net,
>"Timothy Rue" <threeseas at earthlink.net> wrote:

>> One of the things needed in a computer environment is the three primary
>> user interfaces of the command line, the graphical user interface and the
>> side door port to applications and other functionality. The port that
>> allows the user to communicate to the application or functionality in the
>> scriptable vocabulary of the given functionality/application.
>>
>> where the VIC comes in is in handeling the dictionaries of the various
>> applications/functionality and acting as a central control point that can
>> spawn off instances of itself in order to handel greater levels of
>> complexity in a parrallel manner.

>[I'm coming into this discussion late, so forgive me if I've missed
>something obvious - though everyone else seems to be as confused.]

>Is this in anyway related to something like AppleScript?

>    <http://www.apple.com/applescript/>

>This is Apple's attempt to provide a framework where non-programmers can
>communicate to different applications and link them together to perform
>tasks. The central idea is the concept of a "dictionary" for each
>application, and the AppleScript language which presents these dictionaries
>to the user.

>[Side note: I don't mean to be derogatory with the term "non-programmers". I
>just mean people that are more comfortable communicating with natural
>language than the highly artificial and low-level computer languages that
>programmers typically use.]

>> Here is an example of using the VIC in voice/speech controlled...
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=13506.301T771T10734137%40mindspring.co
>> m

>For instance, this previous post you refer to discusses telling the computer
>to format a floppy (vocally, but I presume the idea includes textually):

>    "Computer utility format name f u n drive D F 0 go".

>This task is achieved in AppleScript by using the dictionary of the Finder
>(the file management application on a Mac) to ask it to perform the task:

>    tell application "Finder" to erase disk "Bob"

>[Slightly different since the Mac doesn't identify disks by the drive
>they're in.]

>In this instance, "erase disk" is not a part of the AppleScript language,
>but a part of the interface made available by the Finder. I can write
>scripts that ask for something from application A using its dictionary, and
>then pass the information to application B for processing using the
>dictionary for application B, all within a single script, all using a very
>natural English-like grammar (natural if you speak English that is).

>I don't really see how this relates to auto-coding though. A programmer
>still wrote the application, it's just that Apple encourages programmers to
>make available the functionality of their program through the "side door"
>you mention so that non-programmers can use it.

>Am I getting close?

This is an example of the third user interface. This applescript is
something of a language itself that can make use of other vocabularies of
programs.

It's interesting to note that Apple focused on the second user interface,
the GUI but dropped the first one, the command line.

Today with OSX I believe they may now have all three.

Applescript does seem to be somewhat closed system oriented. That is
Limited within the language included in it and other applications
vocabulary. But then that is to be expected of a scripting language, even
with it's flexable natural language like use.

The VIC is different in that it is not a scripting language but rather
more like a physical mechanical device with gears to shift, cycles to
complete and patterns to match in determing what output it will produce
given the input it receives.

I don't expect anyone to understand anymore. I've pretty much come to the
conclusion that I'm not going to get any help with this, no matter what I
do.

Think about it. IS the idea of applescript or the side door port to
applications and other functionality that new?

the fact is Programmers have had this sort of interface for a long time in
vaious form such as APIs. There can only be one reason why this side door
concept hasn't been made more generally available to the typical end user.

If you don't let the user do it then you can do it and sell it to the
user.

It really is that simple!

The Amiga computer has long had all three user interfaces. But that
doesn't stop the mindset of what amounts to greed. The Arexx port is
usually used only thru the use of the Arexx language. Only a smaller
number of applications can make use of it without arexx.

There really is no excuse to not have made available to the user all three
interfaces in a user friendly manner.

---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
   *~ ~ ~      Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue      What's *DONE* in all we do?  *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:timrue at mindspring.com      >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/  ^<--------<----9----<--------<