AutoHotkey Community

[Laszlo]

I understand, that AHK should maintain backward compatibility. However, its complexity has grown to a level, where I'd like a complete redesign of the syntax, like AutoIt3. Maybe, the simplest solution was a translator from a universal scripting language (maybe BASIC) to AHK. Some of the problems why we constantly have to refer to the Help:

There are three kinds of data:
- variable name
- string (including numbers)
- binary info (%ClipBoardAll%)

Command parameters are in different forms:
- variable name
- variable reference
- expression, like x+1
- literal strings (without quotes, leading spaces ignored)
- processed strings, with variable reference and escape sequences

Syntax and semantics of command parameters depend on preceding subcommands

Hard to remember restrictions (like at single line if statements)

Hard to remember special cases (e.g. appending binary data deletes existing content of the file)

[Chris]

[Laszlo]

Don't get me wrong, Chris! I did not mean to criticize AHK. It is a huge, complex, powerful and functioning system, and I love it. The translator from a general programming language will help us, non-programmers, who only write scripts once in a while. I understand that every syntactic or semantic detail has a reason to be that way, but we mortals keep forgetting all the fine points. I spent about 10 hours to re-learn and debug the GUI stuff for my 2-page Deluxe Clipboard script: where do I need a comma, where do I need %, how to specify the number of dropdown rows in a ComboBox, etc. If there had been a more familiar syntax version, less powerful and easier to remember (with a translator), I could have done it in one hour (what shows how powerful AHK became).

If the majority of AHK users are of the geek type, let this wish have the lowest priority.

[jonny]

As I understand it, AutoHotkey is already modeled after BASIC syntax, correct? I wouldn't know, since I've never used it myself, but my friend works with BASIC a lot and he said it looks very similar. So really the dilemma here is not that the syntax is "uncommon," it's simply unfamiliar. Then again, I could be totally off base. I'll think about it some more.

[Chris]

[Laszlo]

I've spent a few hours with trying to come up with a simplified uniform syntax for AHK. Every direction I took led to complications, and eventually something similar to an existing language. The simplest was the old IBM scripting language REX (does anyone remember it). Another way led to the MATLAB macro language. You can model the syntax after PEARL or any of the dozens of scripting language commonly in use today. In any case, the simplicity of hot key/hot string definitions will be lost.

The dilemma is: if you want to keep the simple syntax for simple tasks, AHK is good as it is now. If you want to have a general syntax with no exceptions, sub-cases, etc, for AHK projects of thousands of lines of code, then pick an existing general scripting language what you like, and somebody might write a translator from it. But simple tasks will not be that simple any more.

[jonny]

I think a different syntax for AutoHotkey is a great idea. Some people, myself included, wouldn't give a darn if funky tricks like hotkey and hotstring defs are lost. Unfortunately, as Laszlo said, the current syntax is already ideal for AHK's mission (due to some incredible top-level design, wink wink). So the solution is to simply... do nothing. For now. The eventual solution could be to keep AHK the way it is now, but also develop a different version (possibly with dll's?) that is syntax-independent, in which the interpreter is separate from the core itself. That way, different wrappers could be written more quickly for different syntax sets.

Of course, we can't possibly place such a load on Chris to do this. If this is ever going to happen, it needs to wait until more developers step in and this community matures more.

Wow, that was a total brainstorm. I might be way off base, as usual. Chris, is that feasible at any level? Note that I'm working with very limited knowledge of how AHK works (having never actually checked out the source).

[Chris]

[AHKnow*]

One way would be to make suggestions for correcting syntax, but that will always be balanced by backwards compatibility with existing scripts and trying to get more developers to work on a particular issue.

Until people are ready for version 2 of AutoHotkey, would not the immediate solution be to use/improving/creating an AutoHotkey syntax checker?

[Titan]

[AHKnow*]

I think Titan brought up a good point.

Why must AutoHotkey become YET ANOTHER CLONE of BASIC/VISUAL BASIC?

I think AutoIt made a mistake by going down the path of becoming a flavor of Basic. AutoHotkey is an easier to use and understand automation scripting language that can do extra. There is no need for AutoHotkey to copy Visual Basic, as there is already more variations of that programming language than you and I could hope to find in a day or more.

AutoHotkey holds a niche as a useful program that almost any computer power user can get into. It also has plenty of features for advanced users, as well as novice users.

I think that the AutoHotkey users and developers should not be afraid to blaze their own trail among scripting and programming languages.

Making things easy, is also difficult too. Just because something is hard or looks like something else does not mean its better.

[Laszlo]

[wOxxOm]

AHK is a swiss knife. I love to walk through debris of doc and learn fast that tweaks and strange syntax of non-formalized language. It gives me strong feeling that AHK is a live creature opposed by rigidness of VB. And thank god it is not as fluid as C++ syntax

The only thing I regret for now is that I can't image how to implement calls that require interface-CLSID-guid objects (IShellFolder e.g.)
if I-objects were implemented we could control explorer shell like a pen in our hand.

[holomind]

my 5cents, i do programming a lot and know many different languages (mostly scripting and web-languages). In the beginning the AHK-syntax was a bit odd. and actually i liked it to be "similar" (but not the same) as a basic dialect so i could understand it quickly. i like it that is has a very efficient syntax without quoting etc. (its unfamiliar in the beginning, but i like it). some syntax looks strange like

[Laszlo]

...except you would need "if x = %y%" in your first example, or "if (x = "y")" in the second one, to have the same behavior. I learned this by now, but I had many-many bugs in my scripts related to this.