WaitingForZion Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Now I understand that AutoIt is an excellent language for automating tasks, as I have seen by using it. And there has been mention of advancing the language to make it more complete or more like a regular programming language. These suggestions have been knocked down and the arguments supporting them refuted, but I must admit I am witnessing AutoIt drift in that direction. Now as far as I understand, this drift is not intentional, seeing none of the developers esteem the idea. But it is clear to me that AutoIt is definitely taking on some of the characteristics of a complete programming language, because it now has abilities to do things that a complete programming language would have. Yet the means by which powerful tasks are accomplished in the language are not completely feasible, as they would be in a regular programming language, although the more automating-based tasks are. Therefore, it seems to me just as someone would find a loophole in something and exploit it to accomplish something not directly and easily accessible, it is done the same way in AutoIt. Can someone please explain this to me? Spoiler "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (I John 1:5-10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valik Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) You're confusing syntactic conveniences with "advancements in functionality". We refuse to implement certain syntactic conveniences. Edited June 19, 2009 by Valik Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaitingForZion Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 You're confusing syntactic conveniences with "advancements in functionality". We refuse to implement certain syntactic conveniences.So then, why do you refuse to implement them? Spoiler "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (I John 1:5-10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valik Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So then, why do you refuse to implement them?You aren't being very clear what this "them" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaitingForZion Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 You aren't being very clear what this "them" is.You have been perfectly clear in what that "them" is yourself: "certain syntactic conveniences" Spoiler "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (I John 1:5-10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valik Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) You have been perfectly clear in what that "them" is yourself: "certain syntactic conveniences"Then why do you ask? It's been discussed in verbose detail. So there's really no point in additional threads on the subject, don't you think? Edited June 19, 2009 by Valik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaitingForZion Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 Then why do you ask? It's been discussed in verbose detail. So there's really no point in additional threads on the subject, don't you think?Im sorry, but I was not aware that it was being discussed so much. Ive only been aware of what Ive come across, and I have not come across so many threads on the subject. If the other developers will permit it, I would like to get involved in the development of AutoIt. I know it is not their goal to implement those things, but it is my goal, and if I come to aid in development, I can help extend the language, because I am just as hopeful in the languages potential as are the others. Spoiler "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (I John 1:5-10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valik Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So you managed to not come across this page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodlessSinner Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 My friend, programmer, for the first time having seen Autoit, has asked me: "What is it? The parody on VStudio? Also has added: "Programming the serious software in Autoit - it's the same that to hammer nails by wooden hammer" (this can be understood incorrectly) AutoIt perfectly copes with certain circle of problems. It is not intended for development of 3D games, for example, though it, theoretically, really to make in Autoit. The only thing that missing is really compiled ЕХЕ. And so, it is enough of, and 10-year job is reputable... _____________________________________________________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodlessSinner Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 And if speech has gone about improvements AutoIT, it would be good to unite Koda and Scite in the single program, and to add a debugger... _____________________________________________________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inverted Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) @ Vitas You obviously don't understand that each language has a specific purpose. Same goes for your friend. And there is a debugger for AutoIt. Also, a scripting language is a scripting language. AutoIt's executable are awesomely small ! And this comes from an assembly programmer ! Edited June 19, 2009 by Inverted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
az2000 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) And if speech has gone about improvements AutoIT, it would be good to unite Koda and Scite in the single program, and to add a debugger...If anyone's creating a wishlist, I'd like to add "associative array." (An array accessed by string value instead of numeric index. Where the accesor is a "key.").Personally, I think improvements should be based upon a "bounty" system. Let anyone add things to the wishlist, and the $ amount they'd pay. Let others chime in with the $ amount they'd pay. I don't think improvements should be treated like this is a religion. Put a monetary value behind some of these things and the dogmatic language ("never gonna happen") might soften. I think it would help eliminate the emotions involved. For example, if thousands of people want object orientation.... and they commit $100k, maybe the topic wouldn't generate so much hubris and automatic dismissal.I don't know the details behind how "bounty" systems work. How to get money into an escrow account so a developer knows people really will pay. But, I think I've read other projects are doing this. Edited June 19, 2009 by az2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valik Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I see that people are going to quickly turn this into a "get a free feature request" thread. So, locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts