John McGhie wrote:
> Hi Mitrokhin:
>
> On 16/05/08 5:38 PM, in article
> 160520081008452444%Mitrokhin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Mitrokhin"
> <Mitrokhin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this is old hat to some but I havn't seen it mentioned in here.
>
> The decision was made about two months ago. Some of us have been under
a
> non-disclosure agreement that has prevented us talking about it until
the
> Microsoft announcement appeared.
>
>> I wonder if it's worthwhile to rewrite VBA macros in Applescript,
>> (which btw I have been doing for the last couple of days :().
>
> Yes, I think so.
>
> VBA is very good for automation "within" an Application. It begins to
have
> problems across applications, and cannot automate non-Microsoft
Applications
> at all.
>
> AppleScript's strength is that it can automate ANYTHING on a Macintosh.
> Because the AppleScript compiler/runtime runs outside the application,
it is
> extremely good at coordinating the efforts of multiple applications.
>
> AppleScript begins to struggle WITHIN an Application, depending on how
> richly-implemented the AppleScript Dictionary is.
>
> Because the AppleScript dictionaries in Microsoft Office are simply a
> re-expression of the VBA Object Model, and because Microsoft Office's
core
> applications were designed from the get-go to be automated, AppleScript
> provides the ability to automate almost every dot and comma in a
Microsoft
> Office application.
>
> So now, solution vendors get the ability to choose between two
automation
> technologies. AppleScript will be the winner when the task involves
> automating non-Microsoft applications. VBA will be the winner when the
task
> benefits from having common code with the PC version.
>
>> [first Wordbasic then VBA then Applescript then perhaps VBA 2 then ?
>> sigh]
>
> The one we REALLY want is "dot-Net". Dot-Net is very difficult to do on
the
> Mac, although there are efforts to get it working beginning to appear.
> Microsoft's original plans for dot-Net included making it available on
> platforms other than Win-Tel.
>
> On a personal note, I am "hoping" (and that's all it is, a "hope") that
"VBA
> 2" will take us closer to .Net. By the way, I am also hoping that what
we
> get will be "VBA 7" (the PC Office 2007 version). What we have in
Office
> 2004 is two levels behind that, and the differences are becoming
annoying.
>
> Hope this helps
I am going to ask some dumb questions. Of which I am famous for doing.
Why is it so complicated to use the VBA used in PC Office on a Mac?
Is it the mapping of commands, and keyboard shortcuts?
The use of UNIX?
The PowerPC Processor with is strictly a RISC based Processor, then
going to an Intel chip with is a combination of both?
I don't need or want a 50 page explanation. Just why is it so complicated.
VBA sup****t for Mac Office products have been in all versions for me
back to Excel 5 and Word 6 days. In fact it was so closely matched that
nasty bugs that could destroy files and hard drives on a PC could do the
same thing, on a Mac. Reason why it was recommend to turn off VBA based
Macros by Virus detection software vendors such a Symantec, as far back
as Word 6 days.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |pjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>
<http://www.vpea.org>
|
