🚀 go-pugleaf

@Shane

I could agree with you when you talk about changes to object model because of big improvements of new version of InDesign.
But must it be realy done this way? I mean what for improvements cause changing names of properties or methods?
e.g.
Document.Path (2.0) = Document.FilePath (CS)
PageItem.TextContents = PageItem.Contents
ParagraphStyle = AppliedParagraphStyle
Window = LayoutWindow
and many, many more simple changes of the property names. I am watching this from the beginning of InDesign and I don't understand why they do that. There are some properties which changes their names in every new release of the Program.
Is it not a basic rule of COM based developing to keep interfaces backward compatible? I don't care about what changes was done
to new version of InDesign - implementation of old OM for the outside world shouldn't change to avoid additional work for plug-in developer. Every time a new version is released you have to search the whole object model to find all changes to make your script new version compatible. Not even a small list of changes is provided by Adobe. I call it a bad way to deal with customers.
The problem I think is from the beginning a "bad reputation" of scripting at all. I remember on the developer conference in Amsterdam which was make to help developert to write some plug-ins for 1.0 nobody from the whole Adobe team was able to answer a simple question : who is responsible for scripting support and implementation - the only answer was ....I don't know and ... we don't recommend to use scripting - all should be programmed with API.
Well, I guess till today there is only one, maybe two guys responsible for scripting support for InDesign and maybe that's why scripting library is not able to create stand alone plug-ins for InDesign. I hope it will change in the future.

regards

Jarema