AutoHotkey Community

Has anyone given serious consideration to integrating Lua with AutoHotkey? That is, make it possible to run Lua-language scripts inside AutoHotkey, and allow them to call the same API, without changing anything about who's the primary one in control of the process/windows/etc. If a patch were created that enabled this via #ifdef's, would it have any chance to ever be integrated? (it sounds like a language-neutral layer might be welcomed, but that's probably more work, particularly if it means that AHK has to be modified to run compliantly inside another application)

It's obvious that AutoHotkey's GUI-enhancing code is adept, and is very popular because of that. But AutoHotkey-the-language has unnecessary complexity that makes it harder for new users to learn the language. AHK has two syntaxes for if-statements (with parens and without), two syntaxes for assignment (":=" and "="), two syntaxes for variable interpolation (with percent-sign and without), and two syntaxes for string literals (with quotes and without). Most languages have things to complain about, but these mean that assignment and conditionals -- two of the most frequently used features -- are harder to understand than they could be. Not only does this make it harder to write code (new coders guess-and-check almost more than with Perl), but reading existing code is more difficult too (because the same syntax can mean two different things, in a way that new users don't expect).

It is possible to update AutoHotkey to have a more consistent and non-overlapping syntax. That may require creating a toggleable backwards-compatibility mode (or at least strongly deprecating the older syntax and some function calls), implementing proper arrays, and maybe making references first-class. But that's a lot of work, and may take a lot of time because of the care and skill required to juggle backwards compatibility issues while avoiding future pitfalls.

Combining AutoHotkey-the-GUI-enhancer with Lua would also be a lot of work.* However, since the job is mostly just to glue together two already-working pieces, it's something that can't go really catastrophically wrong, and it's something that a random code-monkey may be able to accomplish.

*(back of the napkin: Wireshark takes ~6500 LOC to expose 146 function calls to Lua, and AHK's commands.htm lists 237 functions -- though those numbers wouldn't be directly comparable even after taking into account the AHK commands that are control-flow-oriented, or the AHK commands that are really bunches-of-commands-in-one)

Seriously, I don`t think that integrating Lua into AutoHotkey would help us much. That is a complete different language and has not much functionality that we could need. If ever someone needs Lua, he could use it via DLL-Call or just use the EXE executing the script.

There are much more other higher priorities, that we need more than Lua.

This was suggested number of times, and I agree that Lua in combination with AHK functionality is winning combination. AHK lang sucks IMO.

I was considering starting such project but currently I can not spend so much time. Maybe that change in the future.

_________________

lua's structure is so good for embeding, and function is nearst for user

How would it look like, if really embedded? As a command or function? Is performance the only reason? Should AHK have really two independent languages inside?

It would look awesome.


?


No. The power and simplicity of Lua language is well known (thats why its used in games, programmed by kids and non programmers, pretty much similar to goal of AHK author). You have all advanced concepts of mainstreem languages like objects, lists, arrays, function pointers, metaprogramming etc... in language of 100KB size.


No, AHK functionality can be made in such way its usable with any languages (for isntance dll). After that, author of AHK could continue developing its own language if he wants, but you will not be limited with it any more, like you are today.

_________________

Thx for clarification. If I have understand it correctly, no programming in Lua is needed, if embedded to AutoHotkey? My question about

was, interface of Lua integrated as a command style or as a function style?

My question at this point is now: Would the AutoHotkey user ever have to program in Lua? Or is that implementation any kind of for the Author of AutoHotkey itself?

No you didn't undrestand it correctly.

Just imagine you have this instead AHK langugage, and that you can use the same type of functionality.

In this case command syntax would be droped (the same is expected for AHK v2 anyway) and functions would be used instead. However, Lua functions are much more powerful then current AHK commands OR functions together. First thing is that you have named arguments, so Input command, translated to Lua would look like:



Also, in Lua functions can return multiple values, so instead



Among other things Lua code is MUCH shorter and elegant and you can do things like



So, embeding Lua doesn't mean that you take this version of AHK and add Lua (although possible) but that you separate AHK language from AHK functionality, then let the people use their own language, and let someboedy else compile AHK functionality part with Lua language instead AHK language. Any combination is possible.

One obvious tremendous benefit of using Lua is that just by embeding it, you will have access to hundreed of libraries, using Lua's include statement. For instance, you could include entire winwdows API more naturaly and never use DllCall, or you can choose to use wxWidgets as GUI framework instead AHK GUI. All that comes for free when you embedd Lua. Callbacks, better Dll calls, structures, and all things we have problem with in AHK are already there in Lua via some of the includes or internaly for long time...

_________________

OH MY SHIT!!!

Wow and thx for the detailed explanation. Now I see how useful it would be. Thats really awesome, please integrate it, if possible. I intended just about easier calling functions or scripts...

Unfortunately, that will not happen as Chris doesn't see it that way. He also get attached to the language he is developing so its unreal to expect he will drop it (although it would clean the AHK Project and considerably reduce his work as he could concentrate on functionality and let the Lua team proffesionals handle the language and update it)

Also, it seems low probably that somebody else will do it as it requires total reorganisation of AHK code, and before that you must learn it well. IMO, its probably easier to rewrite AHK using current version as start up.

On some other forum places, almost all power members of the forum realised this is the best way to go, but as I said, its unreal to expect Chris will ever think in this direction mainly becuase he is the only developer and got very attached to his child.

Some quotes about the topic on developers forum






















This is how it would look like, if we imagine. This is fictive sample about using wxLua GUI framework (check out screenshot of wxLua controls here)

_________________

...but you forgot one thing...Lua's syntax SUCKKKS...no, I'm not saying AutoHotkey's syntax is perfect, in fact it's not, but...someone needs to embed JavaScript syntax with AutoHotkey, not Lua, JavaScript...Lua uses retarded "if then else" "end"...BAD!...instead of blocks...GOOD!...it uses "and" "or" "not"...BAD!...instead of "&&" "||" "!"...GOOD!...all the things I hate are in Lua...so...no thanks...

I tend to agree with Chris' comments and the guest above me. AutoHotkey is original as it doesn't maintain a strict standard for flexibility and uses innovative hotkey syntax that's fairly easy to pick up. Lua enthusiasts can build their own version; Chris should continue to focus on developing for the current audience of non-programmers who want to get around Windows with the least hassle.

Ye, so instead 300KB interpretator you get with Lua, you will get 20MB app. Thanks, but no thanks and I am sure nobody wants that.

Anyway, if designed correctly, any language could be used as said by Laszlo. Lua is just the best choice IMO for officialy choosen language.


You didn't understand this very well. By changing the concept of AHK internals, any language could be used, even the AHK langauge as we know it today. It will just allow the usage of other languages,

Your inovative hotkey syntax wouldn't be lost, it would probably stay the same.


Lua is made for non-programmers. With it you would have less hassle then with currently very poor language. Maintaining and improving the language while you also maintain and improve functinality is double work. Language theory is story per se, and it requires dedicated people who wil care about that all the time. Chris is reinventing the weel here.

It seems that people here don't understant one very important thing - introducing flexibile and more powerful langauge, dosn't neccesseraly mean that it will introduce bigger complexity of every day projects (special projects are always easier and understandable in more flexibile languages - just check out some of the Seans COM work to see how ugly AHK can be on low level). Also, this will make AHK much easier portable to other platforms. There were lots of ppz around who were saying things like "if we add namespaces or classes this will become bloated as Java", but Lua is good example that its not true. Its size is around 100KB, its very fast, and have all advanced concepts like mainstreem languages. You can even keep command like syntax as of its flexibile token analyzer that you can override, for instance instad:


you can allow things like

This is for instance how you can write it in Python.

You can litteraly have the same simplicity you have today, in environment that allows for all kind of imaginative things.

That Lua is also targeting non-programmers, you can see by the fact that most modern games use Lua as their macro language. Children don't have troubles customizing their gaming experience using it. This is also excelent stress test, as if Lua works like a charm in gaming environment, with all system resources allocated, then it will shine in normal computer scnearios.


World of Warcraft is probalby the best example of state-of-the-art engine driven by Lua. I doubt such sophisticated peace of software is ever created, in gaming or other domains, and that is primarly cuz of Lua.

_________________

...I'm sure Lua's 100KB app could be modified to act like JavaScript syntax, without importing the full 20MB syntax...

Ofcourse it can. But why.... because you like the C syntax ?
You can just go and use Ranorex. It is available for C.

In this case, its more then unaprpopriate considering the goals and history.


Random code-monkey ? I don't agree. Random code-monkey is usualy specialised in one or 2 things, probably something mainstreem.

_________________