I just discovered Script Kit, and at first glance, it's everything I've ever wanted from a shortcut utility. It has a bit of a learning curve to get used to the shortcuts and navigation, but once you get past them, it gets easier to move through the interface. I've been interested in something that combines javascript and the Alfred utility for some time, and this does that. It allows you to easily create scripts that get a job done quickly and simply.
I appreciate the effort and innovation put into ScriptKit, but I have some concerns. The main issue is the paid sponsorship. I understand for-profit open-source projects, but some basic features like "Debugging Scripts" require a pro account. My main concern to committing to a tool like this is "vendor lock-in", ensuring that what I'm building and contributing to over the next couple months will not break and will be future-proof. The scripts written for ScriptKit will need to continue running within ScriptKit, as they contain global functions that break importing and typing, making migration to a different tool difficult in the future.
Another issue is the complexity with Node.js and NPM, which Deno has solved. In Deno, scripts don't need a package.json and you can easily target a specific version for your dependencies within your files. With Script Kit, if your script requires a dependency, you have to first install it in order to use the script, which could lead to versioning issues in the future.
Finally, I faced an issue creating a script where the UI would just go away instead of creating the file. Overall, I like what John Lindquist has done with ScriptKit and I think it's powerful, but there are some things that bother me. I think there's a balance for what features should be paid for in open-source projects and the tradeoff between using a system that has "vendor lock-in" and being obligated to pay $7 a month indefinitely.
Top comments (0)