[jawsscripts] Re: advantages of object oriented over procedural API, plus Gw Fs Scripting methodology question.

  • From: Jamal Mazrui <empower@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:17:56 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Geoff,
The Window-Eyes API is object oriented in the manner of COM,
e.g., like the Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, or Internet Explorer object
models.  COM is not a complete OO approach, e.g., classes are not
inheritable, but it does make coding easier because related elements are
grouped together such as the properties, methods, and events of an object.
Compared to the OO of COM, I think a procedural API can generally do the
same things by passing a handle to an object as the first parameter of a
method.  So, the OO nature of the WE APIis not so much an advantage
technically as with the organization it brings, which helps in
distinguishing concepts, seperating namespaces, and remembering syntax,
since OO consciously uses similar names for similar methods or properties
of different objects (polymorphism).  For anyone familiar with the Word or
IE object models, imagine if there was no hierarchy of objects, but just a
long list of methods for the whole API -- it would be more difficult to
work with!

Regarding advantages of the JAWS API, it does have a type of inheritance
of script and function names, whereby an application can redefine a
routine with the same name, and then choose to call the default version or
not (actually, the next version with the same name that is up a level in
the hierarchy).  WinEyes does not have this.  JAWS functions can have
optional parameters, which VBScript (the most common WinEyes scripting
language) functions cannot.  JAWS offers an integrated development
environment via Script Manager, whereas WinEyes requires an editor that is
not customized to WinEyes scripting.  In my opinion, this is the most
significant advantage that JAWS scripting still has over WinEyes
scripting.

Addressing some points others have raised, VBScript is more of an open
source language than the JAWS scripting language, which is truly
proprietary (only FS uses it).  VBScript is freely available and can be
run by various hosts including the Windows Script Host, Internet Explorer,
and Microsoft Outlook.  One will find many more free tutorials and
examples on the web that use VBScript compared to JAWS script.  Although a
WinEyes script can be encoded, none of the 80 or so currently available on
the GW web site, including ones developed by the company, are encoded.
Its source code is released under a BSD license.  It is unclear what
license FS intends for its scripts, but given its propensity to litigate,
I doubt it is the permissive BSD license (freely modify the code as long
as the original source is acknowledged but not used to promote the
modified version).

The WinEyes scripting engine hosts two languages internally, just like the
Windows Script Host:  VBScript and JScript.  I think the WinEyes security
model is clearly stronger than the JAWS one.  A user can decide not to
permit any script to run that has not ben explicitly allowed in advance.

Feel free to ask further questions.  I welcome other opinions as
well.  I do prefer the JAWS keyboard interface, so have developed a
WinEyes script package called Homer Layout to emulate most JAWS keys,
while also incorporating functionality unique to WinEyes.

Regards,
Jamal

 On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Geoff Chapman wrote:

> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 02:44:28 +1000
> From: Geoff Chapman <gch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [jawsscripts] advantages of object oriented over procedural API,
>      plus Gw Fs Scripting methodology question.
>
> Regarding Jamal's post of last week concerning some of the advantages he 
> currently saw and listed
> with the current window eyes Scripting implementation over the Fs current 
> offering, I have a question from another scripter not onlist to ask here, 
> plus one of my own.
> First my friend's question:
>
> Aside from just being yet another way to think about the
> problem at hand, what is the true advantage of object-oriented approaches in 
> this environment?  In other words, what can you do in an object-oriented 
> system, that you can not do procedurally.
>
> And, now for my question:
>
> Jamal, once again thinking of both scripting approaches as you know them, and 
> as they stand right now, would you care to comment as to whether, in your 
> view, the scripting model that fs has in place with jaws right now,
> holds, any, current pluses/a dvantages at all right now, either of tightness 
> of integration or procedurally,
> over the current gw model?
> with all it's caveats?
> Thanks very much.
>
> geoff c.
>
>
>
> __________ 
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
>
__________ 
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. jawsscripts
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2008