[Pythonmac-SIG] Python+Automator?

[Bob Ippolito]

On Jan 24, 2005, at 20:04, has wrote:

> Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> 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.

Well, from the documentation, it looks like you need to use Interface 
Builder in order to write actions... so if Studio is too difficult, 
just about anything would be.  I suppose a few useful templates 
including cookie cutter UIs could be included, maybe with some kind of 
declarative way to add widgets (Renaissance?), would be useful to that 
kind of users you're talking about.  You'd really need to develop a 
bunch of Actions before you'd know...

>> 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.

Well, in order to have a language like Python, you need people who can 
already program anything in C.  Actions follow similarly, especially 
out of the box.  They're always going to be easier to use than write, 
though.

>> 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.

I'm not even sure that NDA'd people are supposed to talk about Tiger 
amongst themselves.  The first rule of ADC is - you do NOT talk about 
ADC.... :)

-bob