Include Mistery

[JSThePatriot]

Addressing size:

Stop for a second and think about other scripting languages that are as powerful as AutoIt. How big are compiled scripts in them? Can you even compile your scripts in them? Do they require a large run-time?

Addressing performance:

As the saying goes, "pre-mature optimization is the root of all evil". Optimize your code first (with benchmarks) and then we'll see where the real performance bottlenecks lie. I would be willing to bet that I can find more performance gains optimizing the referenced code in a script than I can find by eliminating unreferenced code from a script.

I must say I have to agree with Valik, Saving a few KB would only be (as stated in all the other threads) useful if you are using a central location over a network running the file to a bunch of computers to do a mass update or something. (I forget how it was worded before, but someone made a valid point somewhere along those lines). I dont have a need for that. AutoIt is small enough for me even with 20 includes.

JS

[Valik]

@JdeB

Not tested anything yet.

But overload in performance is not so much the script or Exe file. Rather than than the performance indeveloping, using these large "include" files.

This topic is based on someone saying, he has plans to make a new Excel.au3 include from scratch.

With the intention to add more in there than thera alread is in the curent one.

I am not fond of this so kalled" overkill" aproach.

Did you ever try to work such an overloaded include file.

This doesn't make any sense. Why is it of any concern to you how much effort other people put in making thorough, feature-rich libraries?

[SmOke_N]

What's an include ? If it's a function that I use often, I just make that function an #include, and if I don't use it often, I just get it out of the #include file with a script I wrote and put it in my script, sucks when helping in the forum, because I have to remember where the actual functions are located in the "actual" include files .

Edit:

Grammar is not my strong point lol.

Edited May 11, 2006 by SmOke_N

[ptrex]

This doesn't make any sense. Why is it of any concern to you how much effort other people put in making thorough, feature-rich libraries?

If the include functions are badly written it takes it takes a hell of a lot of time to debug.

I am not interested in this so far.

Does this make any sence, then

BTW this is the last reply i will write about it because it is going over the top.

[Jos]

If the include functions are badly written it takes it takes a hell of a lot of time to debug.

I am not interested in this so far.

Does this make any sence, then

BTW this is the last reply i will write about it because it is going over the top.

Don't bale yet from this interesting discussion...

Maybe not all functions are written is the best possible way, but I don't understand what you mean by debugging them ?

You don't need to debug any of them as far as I can tell. The helpfile describes what they do, like the internal commands, and they should work as advertised...

When they don't, then post a Bug report like you would do for internal commands...

Agree ?

Edited May 11, 2006 by JdeB

[Valik]

Functions should be treated as a black box with an assumed contract between the library vendor and the user. The vendor tells you what to give the function and what the function will give you in return. As long as you give good input, the function should give good output. If it doesn't, then you first try to find out if the vendor has provided a fix. Only if the vendor is unavailable or unwilling to fix a bug do you open the cover on the black box and look at the insides of the function. Debugging other people's libraries is a last resort unless there is a pressing need for a fix. It is not common to debug 3rd-party libraries.

This is not unlike built-in functions (as JdeB mentions). You don't have current source for AutoIt so if you find a bug in a built-in function you have to report it according to our guidelines in the bug report forum. A library function is no different just because you do have the source available.

The distinction you are failing to make is you are not immediately responsible for maintaining library code if you are not the author. Only when the author abandons the library or when consciously make a decision to take over the library because of disagreements between yourself and the original author does it become important to debug the libraries code.

In other words, you are no more responsible for fixing bugs you find in libraries than you are for fixing bugs you find in AutoIt itself. If you do feel responsible, that is your choice and is most definitely not grounds for making outrageous statements like you did above where the size and performance of AutoIt are questioned.

[ptrex]

@JdeB/Valik

OK, I owe you a last reply in order not to miscunderstand each other.

I was not talking about the official "Includes", let that be clear.

They are of outstanding quality and if something goes wrong a fix is there in no time. And indead this is taken serious over the whole line.

My concern goes out to the ones that get not promoted, to be an official "Include" library.

If someone like here http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/index.ph...ndpost&p=182583 want to start making UDF's, than I was only sharing my point of view on the pro and con's of large UDF's.

Don' t feel offended, I was merely sharing my view.

I still love AutoIT, and would be the last to attack it's design !!

[Jos]

I was not talking about the official "Includes", let that be clear.

Ok that helps to clarify were you are coming from, but you mentioned IE.au3, which is about to become part of the standard include library. The helpfile is nearly ready as you might have seen. This was the main reason for me to jump into this threat.

My concern goes out to the ones that get not promoted, to be an official "Include" library.

Agree you need to be a bit more careful here , but that statement is valid for many scripts posted.

I will run/use only those scripts that I understand how they work....

Don' t feel offended, I was merely sharing my view.

Not offended at all... I like people with an (strong) opinion... just wanted to make sure it is clear how I feel about the subject and try to put things in perspective.