Forums

Just a few days ago John Nack announced that we will be able to use WebKit in CS5 applications. Two months ago in this presentation the message is that PatchPanel, SwitchBoard and CSXS will never leave Adobe Labs. Around the 6 minute mark they state that:

The idea is that you can do everything from ActionScript [...] you're not gonna have to deal with JavaScript or ExtendScript

The overall message is not very clear. There are now two ECMAScript engines, ExtendScript and Adobe AIR. I also think there are now 4 ways to create a UI in CS applications: C++, ScriptUI, Flex and HTML+CSS (with the support of WebKit).

Don't get me wrong, I think having the choice is good, but without guidance how are we going to make the right decision?

Hello, Adobe?

PS. Here's another fun quote from the same presentation:

A lot of these APIs [...] the documentation is a little bit all over the place [...] hopefully, you know, we're gonna do some, we're gonna try to do something to correct that

Olav Martin Kvern wrote:

 

I don't have much that I can say, except we're working on some very cool things.

So that's it then? How are we supposed to make a decision based on "very cool things" that Adobe doesn't have much they can say about?

Is it better to focus on ActionScript than on ExtendScript? If you don't respond I'll take that as a yes. If you respond with a vague statement (anything) I'll take that as a no

Seriously though, thanks for the reply, but it's not helping. It just makes my opening question even more to the point.

Olav Martin Kvern wrote:

 

You can't draw either conclusion from my response or lack of it. Or, you can, but it won't give you a valid basis on which to plan your future.

I know, I wasn't being serious...

Olav Martin Kvern wrote:

 

I think it's safe to say that a.) the InDesign scripting model will not change (or won't change much), regardless of the language (after all, we already have the same DOM for three totally different languages), and b.) an investment in JavaScript--whether in the ExtendScript or ActionScript flavor--can't be bad, as you can convert from one to the other with very minor changes. Indeed, you could move code from ExtendScript into a PatchPanel project by simple copy/paste.

ActionScript can't be converted to ExtendScript in most cases though. What version of JavaScript is ExtendScript in CS5? Will it have some of the newer JavaScript features that we are starting to see in browsers as well?

I think I can read between the lines and I can sort of see where it's all going. The most important thing I need to know, if I develop an ExtendScript library, can the methods be called directly from ActionScript, or does it have go through something like ExternalInterface?

Thanks!

Olav Martin Kvern wrote:

 

I don't understand. The main difference going from ActionScript to ExtendScript is one of adding (from ES to AS) or removing (from AS to ES) type declarations (for variables and for the return types for functions). The larger differences have to do with which libraries and/or DOMs you're working with--most of the new features for JavaScript in browsers are extensions to the browser's DOM.

It's a lot more complicated that that actually (and I hope that the current secret features are not developed based on the assumption that the difference between ExtendScript/JavaScript and ActionScript are this simple).

For one, the class-based development model is not supported in ExtendScript (as far as I know from scripting InDesign CS3). So from what I understand there is no support for the class, private, protected, public, namespace keywords. Also, I believe that E4X is not supported in ExtendScript. And when the ActionScript code has any dependency on other libraries (through the import statement) then I think that library is not portable to ExtendScript either.

So you see, it's quite a big difference between these two environments. I generally believe that ExtendScript scripts can be ported to ActionScript without much problems, but definitely not the other way around if the ActionScript is in any way using class-based inheritance, E4X or imports libraries.

Olav Martin Kvern wrote:

 

ExtendScript does a pretty good job keeping up with the ECMAScript specification...

Where can I find information about the supported language features of ExtendScript? In this context, it would be more useful to refer to JavaScript versions (like Acrobat 9 supports JavaScript 1.7)

Thanks!

Sure, I understand the difference between the two development models. I just wanted to point out to Ole that there is no easy conversion from ActionScript to ExtendScript.

I understand the use of #include, but it does not help converting ActionScript code that uses import.

As far as support goes: It supports the full ECMAScript specification (as it's applicable to desktop programs). The OMV in the ESTK has the full DOM including the core Javascript functionality.

 

What does that mean? What's OMV, and exactly what spec is supported (compared to JavaScript 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 etc)?

Thanks!

Olav Martin Kvern wrote:

 

We may just have a differing definition of "easy."

 

Nope, I think I didn't explain the scope of the development effort I had in mind. I'm talking about possibly developing a library that includes communicating to web services and/or databases. Now that I understand we may have access to the complete Adobe AIR runtime and all namespaces, I think taking a dependency on that is a good decision when compared to developing that in ExtendScript. However, with that dependency, I don't think a conversion to ExtendScript is feasible.

Unless... ExtendScript gets support for importing these Adobe AIR namespaces. Which doesn't seem likely, because the focus seems to be on keeping the DOM as the common ground.

Anyway, this has been a great discussion, thanks for all the information Ole and others!

I have signed up for the prerelease program, it seems like the only way to get actual info, but even then it's still under NDA...