maciekskontakt

Eric_WVGG said:

Soli said:

CheeseFreeze said:

AppleScript syntax looks ridiculous. In an attempt to make it user friendly, it's really not. 
Why not just switch to Swift syntax? Looks much more standard and looks way more friendly.

 What is this Swift syntax for Automator that would be more "friendly" than AppleScript?

It's very difficult to learn or memorize "the right way" to say something in AppleScript, because it looks like English (where there's no one right way to say anything), but it's actually syntactically strict (like any programming language). So you might take a statement like…

set message to make new outgoing message with properties {subject:theSubject, content:theContent, visible:true}
… but try to write it like…
make new outgoing message with properties {subject:theSubject, content:theContent, visible:true}
… or…
set new outgoing message with properties {subject:theSubject, content:theContent, visible:true}
… or…
set message to new outgoing message with properties {subject:theSubject, content:theContent, visible:true}

See the problem? These all "look" fine, but only the first one actually works.

Swift is C-syntax, which makes familiar to anyone who does C or Javascript which means basically every programmer alive. What we want is…
let message = Message(subject:theSubject, content:theContent, visible:true)

C is complied langiuage not scripting language. It is not about memorizing. AppleScript and JavaScript are scripting languages. - nothing to do with compiled. That means differences are justifiable and they make sense.

Do not squeeze languages into the same bucket based on syntax. It is not smart idea as they are processed by OS differently and require different ooptimizations if any. Some companies like Microsoftr learned hard way this fact over last two, three decades. Some things are possible and some work giving side effects that then you have to deal with. It is immature to turn one in another. That is also why TypeScript was born and it is "compiled" into lower level instructions - JavaScript. Time will only show if this was good idea.

It only looks like it is easy to align syntax, but when you consider purpose things become different.

onepotato said:

I thought Apple was working on creating it's own GPUs.

And you also thought that Apple hold all patents on electronics. You might be wrong.

As soon as FB asked me if it could use my mobile number as contact displaying it I removed FB application from phone alltogether and it will not come back. I can use it on PC or iPad, but mobile phones will never see FB or similar apps. That went too far. Also I will never get why scam call detection apps ask question to access my contacts. They need to access blocked numbers on my phone in the first place - they are not getting any info about my contacts. I agree contacts should be secured additionally and apps should never ask for access to them in order to function properly. Now with GDPR in life since May some may be cwareful for abousinbg this information as it may end up in court in European Union... regardless if you ask for access in the USA or elsewhere.... so do not ask if you do not want to be forced to show up in court in EU.

jameskatt2 said:

I'm suspicious of this since USB-C adapters may make the iPhone much more vulnerable to hacking.

Why? You can intercept data on any connector. It does not make difference what connector you use. The key is transfer protocol and encryption just like on network. It is as simple as that.

mazda 3s said:

Although I wonder what would happen if you were to plug a 2019 iPhone into a 15-inch MacBook Pro USB-C charger?

Nothing bad. Modern electronics can manage power, voltage and current easily. I would guess it wouyld be charging just fine.