It's not a matter of strong vs. loose typing. It's a matter of resources for writing the ESTK. Autocomplete doesn't need to know about the type of the object you're entering, only what the DOM says its properties/methods are.
For whatever it's worth, I get pretty good autocompletion on things like enumerations in the CS4 ESTK, but it guesses poorly or not at all on most other things.
> Alright. (By the way, how was the shlach manos? ;-)
> Great. Thanks! Nice card by the way. ;)
I recently started taking to writing my code in BBEdit. The autocomplete
there and in TextMate are great. I'm currently in the process of trying
to decide between BBEdit and TextMate for writing code. Both are WAY
better than the ESTK.
I might just end up using both of them, as they each have their own
Some of the options in TextMate simply boggle the mind. I think there
should be some way to create an ExtendScript bundle for TextMate, which
should give some incredible features. Maybe I'll look into this some day
when I have time...
These are both Mac programs. I don't know what there is comparable on
the Windows side of things...
Yes, I noticed that also.
Glad to see there's still room for improvement!
As is often the case, I'm comparing an Adobe product to my experiences using
a MS product, in this case MS Visual Basic editor (the one that comes with
Word). That works as expected, although I haven't used it a great deal.
BBEdit and TextMate both support custom variables, although I'm not sure
to what extent you can get them to support properties of custom
variables. (I think you probably can do it with with TextMate, but I'm
still groping my way around the program...)