| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What language should the AHK functionality be glued onto? |
| Lua |
|
25% |
[ 3 ] |
| C# + IronPython + Managed JScript + .... |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| leave it as-is |
|
75% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
interiot
Joined: 06 Nov 2005 Posts: 50
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: AutoHotkey philosophy |
|
|
If anyone cares to, here's a ton of text that can be grepped. Some highlights:
- On the other hand, some people (even those from a programming background) have said they like the current syntax, such as the lack of need for parentheses around parameter lists and quotes around literal strings. I like it too, ever since I discovered AutoIt v2 some 5 years ago -- though clearly it has its weaknesses. Jan 05, 2006
- The syntax is indeed strange from a programmer's point of view. Mar 23, 2005
- I realize that such volunteers tend to be in short supply because I think the AutoHotkey community has a much lower percentage of programmers than that of AutoIt. This is partially due to the difference in target audience. Aug 27, 2005
- Here's the thing: I'd never intended AutoHotkey to become yet another programming language. Because of this, I ... give a lower priority to concepts only programmers would tend to use, such as classes, structures, namespaces, preprocessing, etc. Sep 16, 2006
- One of the costs of adding new features is hidden: it's the documentation complexity. For example, even if a new feature were easy to implement and very small in code size, documenting it would make the GUI feature seem more complex and harder to learn/remember. Jun 16, 2006
- I have this attitude because the documentation has been criticized as being too long, which I agree with. I have a large list of things deliberately omitted because I feel that including them would add more confusion than they're worth. The documentation would probably be 30% longer if they were all included. Jan 05, 2007
- I want the AHK project to be responsive to what users want. For example, anyone can feel free to set up a forum poll to try to draw support for a feature they want, or a poll to vote on the priority order the planned features should be done in. Jul 15, 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SKAN
Joined: 26 Dec 2005 Posts: 5298
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I voted: leave it as-is |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
imapow
Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 89 Location: Trøndelag, Norway
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
me 2 _________________ -._.-¨¯¨-._.-IM@PΩW-._.-¨¯¨-._.- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garry
Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 944 Location: switzerland
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| me2 : leave it as-is |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zippo() Guest
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't wait until I can type:
| Code: | a := 0
b := 1
If (a ==!==b-1&b-1==!==b+0&==z!==!!=7&(b>0)=!c) |
to find out if a and b are equal.
This is badly needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
imapow
Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 89 Location: Trøndelag, Norway
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zippo() wrote: | I can't wait until I can type:
| Code: | | If (a ==!==b-1&b-1==!==b+0&==z!==!!=7&(b>0)=!c) |
|
ok? _________________ -._.-¨¯¨-._.-IM@PΩW-._.-¨¯¨-._.- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
interiot
Joined: 06 Nov 2005 Posts: 50
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zippo() wrote: | | Code: | a := 0
b := 1
If (a ==!==b-1&b-1==!==b+0&==z!==!!=7&(b>0)=!c) |
|
I totally forgot the "port it to Befunge" option, it slipped my mind.
Is the way forward to spend >50% of development time rehashing programming language design? Or, is the way forward to focus development time on maintaining and improving the GUI-automation portion?
The world already has all the forever-nascent custom languages that we need. What is needed is a GUI-automation library that's useful for small and large scripts. Language design sucks up a lot of time, so AutoHotkey should instead focus on its core competencies.
If you reimplement the AHK functions in .NET, then the functionality becomes available to a ton of different languages (ergo, large userbase). Or, if you integrate Lua into AHK, then it might make AHK oriented towards both casual users and programmers at the same time (though that should be possible without resorting to such extreme measures).
Last edited by interiot on Thu May 08, 2008 5:57 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SomeGuy
Joined: 21 Apr 2008 Posts: 92 Location: somewhere
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There is a person that is working on a .NET version of autohotkey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: AutoHotkey philosophy |
|
|
| interiot wrote: | | [*]The syntax is indeed strange from a programmer's point of view. |
i think it's good as it is.
for that Scripting part, Chris said AutoHotkey isn't for programmers basically it's made for non-programmers.
so i don't care that how it looks from programmer's point of view it's ideal for non-programmer for now
i haven't seen any other easier language than AutoHotkey maybe gw-basic?
although it has a bit different syntax with generic programming languages
i'd like to see C like operators. which will be helpful when someone trying to learn generic languages after AutoHotkey
syntax is just syntax, no one trying to memorize all that syntaxes
it can be recalled from the helpfile whenever i forgot and it'll be forgotten someday when i don't use AutoHotkey much
syntax is just syntax |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SomeGuy wrote: | | There is a person that is working on a .NET version of autohotkey. |
there's another person that is working on a Javascript Version of autohotkey |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zippo() Guest
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| interiot wrote: | | I totally forgot the "port it to Befunge" option, it slipped my mind. |
Ops, sorry. You must be one of these guys:
| Code: | | Dear.Operating.System.Can.You.Please.Display.A.Message.Box.With.An.OK.Button.And.The.Words("Click Ok to continue.") |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zippo() Guest
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wait, that code won't compile. How stupid of me.
In VB you might need to add a SUB somewhere.
And for C# you need to do the ; thing at the end of the line.
Hafta keep mommy MS happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lexikos
Joined: 17 Oct 2006 Posts: 2359 Location: Australia, Qld
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zippo() wrote: | | In VB you might need to add a SUB somewhere. | Only if you're declaring a method...
I voted "leave it as-is," but I also look forward to the syntax changes that v2 will bring. I would not be averse to ports of AutoHotkey functionality to other languages - I see no reason to restrict it to any single language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: | | Dear.Operating.System.Can.You.Please.Display.A.Message.Box.With.An.OK.Button.And.The.Words("Click Ok to continue.") |
...LOL...very funny (& real!)...heres a vote against C# (C-pound)...
...but I vote for JavaScript! (not in the poll)...
BTW...wtf is "Managed JScript"?...you do know that "JScript" is just Microsoft's stolen & renamed version of Netscape's JavaScript...so I imagine "Managed JScript" is just a C-pound'ified version of "JScript"...aka a **** up version of perfectly fine JavaScript... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
interiot
Joined: 06 Nov 2005 Posts: 50
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | | BTW...wtf is "Managed JScript"? |
It's usually bad news when Microsoft co-opts something, but in this case, it means those JScript scripts get access all .NET APIs, which is a good thing (the system APIs are really well-done... but also, having Hotkey()/Send()/WinExist()/... be available to any .NET language would be a good thing)
| SomeGuy wrote: | | There is a person that is working on a .NET version of autohotkey. |
Do you have any more details? Lexikos has written a .NET interop component that could let you route requests from C#/et al to AutoHotkey, but that's probably not a complete solution long-term, compared to re-implementing AutoHotkey functionality in a .NET language. (for instance, managing threading across the divide would probably be a pain) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|