![]() ![]() There is a difference, and in some cases, it can make all the difference between working and failing. I tend to put nearly anything that is semi complex or has even a small chance of needing to be done more than once in a script into a function block.įor this reason, I recommend testing it in a policy called by whatever actual triggers will run it, after you've tested it locally.Īll excellent suggestions above from Although I do not do everything on that list, I'm particularly fond of points 4 & 5. It really makes understanding the code much easier since it means your if/then blocks are less complicated, among other things. It also makes doing loop/repeat type stuff easier to implement in general.Īnd documenting your script/code is important. You sometimes make decisions in your script creation that won't make sense down the line, so putting some comment blocks explaining what something is doing can be essential. I've even designed out workflow diagrams for my more complicated and lengthier scripts. One for the coders: I discovered CodeRunner by Nikolai Krill a few months back, and it’s proven to be very, very useful in the kind of work that I do. Those tend to be more for others than myself, but they can also be helpful later on when looking over the script to make any edits.Īs for the suggestions on an app to use, CodeRunner is a good app. BBEdit is one of the oldest and most popular text-editors out there. It allows you to test blocks of code and see the results quickly and easily. The software has been available since 1992 which long predates the macOS as we know today. It’s one of the best HTML and text editor for macOS.īBEdit’s existence for more than 25 years is enough to sing its praise. I tend to use BBEdit myself, which does have the ability to run scripts. For casual, unsophisticated applications by someone who grew up with green screen character based computers, it's probably OK.Since BBEdit is really an advanced "text editor" and not necessarily just a script/code editor, it doesn't have all the code related bells and whistles of CodeRunner, but it does a good enough job for me nonetheless. For this reason, I would not recommend Emacs to anyone who is under 50 year old, or who needs power user capabilities. The things I just mentioned, are all present in some limited and inept form, but falls far short of current standard of good user interface design. To this day, it lacks or struggles with very basic things, like interactive dialogs, toolbars, tabbed interface, file system navigation, etc., etc. ![]() ![]() So Emacs does 5% or what an editor should do quite will, and is surprisingly under-powered and old fashioned at the other 95%. Unfortunately, it didn't keep up with the times and fails to take advantage of the entire world of GUI design that's revolutionized computer science since then. In fairness to Emacs, its original design was conceived in that context and is rather good at some things, like flexible ability to bind commands to keyboard shortcuts. ![]() User interface is terrible I was using Emacs in the early 1980's, before there were GUIs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |