Ken.Knight@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Knight) (01/30/91)
breidenb@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Oliver Breidenbach) writes: >The one thing that I missed in the MacOS was a way to let the >applications >perform simple tasks without really oppening them and having all the >fuss >about teaching somebody about how to use the application. That includes >some kind of batch-language (not a shell) to automatically perform some >workarounds.For example: I have a DBASE (okay, okay, that is a long >story) program that keeps track about some 150 products my company is >producing. That >includes pricing, worktime (sorry if that's not >proper english), costs for >material, a procduct number and so on. This database is subject to >permanent change. >Since we are a small company and don't have a big budget and need that >for >more important tasks anyway, it is necessary to convert this database >to >ragtime format (ragtime is a great program integrating dtp, spreadsheet >and some database applications) using the apple file exchange utility. >After that we have to do some pre-conversion with word (replacing some >strange characters related with the german language and the funny way >dbase uses field delimiters) and finally import it into a spreadsheet >in >ragtime. This task last 20 min at least and can't be performed by one >of the >technically unskilled people at the department because there are plenty >of ways to do things wrong. Since the task is basically very simple if >you know WHAT you are doing, it could easily be performed >automatically by a simple batch application if: > >a) there were such batch application >b) ms word and ragtime were kind of remote controllable. You're right about Apple working on such a batching processing script language. Though lat I heard, and I'm hardly in the know, it isn't going to come out with System 7. The Mac isn't, at present , really cut out for such tasks. You can come kinda sorta close with ingenious writing of HyperCard stacks. But, that will only go so far and won't let you run things remotely. Still, I can imagine such a thing and since HC 2.0 will allow background tasks to go happily on it is at least a temporary step in the right direction. Now, if you had to do lots of batch work I'd suggest laying hands on either an MS-DOS or UNIX system either of which is much better at this stuff (especially UNIX). Internet: ken.knight@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org AOL: KenKnight BBS: Twilight Clone 301-946-8643 @ 9600 HST or -5032 9600/v.32: Ken Knight -- Ken Knight, Ken.Knight@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org via The Black Cat's Shack's FidoNet<->Usenet Gateway blkcat.fidonet.org and Fidonet 1:109/401
d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (01/31/91)
In article <3214.27A6A773@blkcat.fidonet.org> Ken.Knight@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Knight) writes: >least a temporary step in the right direction. Now, if you had to do >lots of batch work I'd suggest laying hands on either an MS-DOS or UNIX >system either of which is much better at this stuff (especially UNIX). That's A/UX... (Best of both worlds) Maybe with some nifty work with _AUXDispatch you could really script things up... Or a trap patch, or both... h+ :::::::: Jon W{tte, Stockholm, Sweden, h+@nada.kth.se :::::::: "The IM-IV file manager chapter documents zillions of calls, all of which seem to do almost the same thing and none of which seem to do what I want them to do." -- Juri Munkki (jmunkki@hut.fi) in comp.sys.mac.programmer