Jump to content

Sky Slate Blueberry Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate
Photo

Why isn't anybody helping Chris with the original branch?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic
jaco0646
  • Moderators
  • 3165 posts
  • Last active: Apr 01 2014 01:46 AM
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2006

we're at a point that some decision making, some consolidation... is needed

As I pointed out above, there is no consensus amongst all the developers of other branches. Theoretically, they could all back one project, right? If they can't agree with eachother, how should Chris agree with all of them? He certainly will not mediate their differences; however, if they were consolidated (which requires nothing from Chris) I think the synergy of their resulting project would be very compelling.

he needs to fulfill the responsibilities

Us wanting him to do certain things does not make it his responsibility. Chris has the right to do what he wants. He does not owe us anything.

he should come back for one more post to make things clear.

Believe me, I've tried. I begged and I pleaded. I cajoled and I coaxed. He steadfastly refuses to post an announcement. He sees no purpose in it. In fairness, as I said, he does not owe us anything; but I asked for permission to speak for him in answering threads like this one (the frequency of which he was not aware). He granted me that much.

Has he ever elaborated on why he left?

Yes, the development of AHK no longer interests him. There is no more passion for it, no fire. Last I spoke with him, there was not even a spark. He will not rule out the possibility of returning at some point. Personally, I have my doubts. I also have the impression that he is happy with the status of AHK as he left it, especially its stability. He is deservedly proud of what he created and feels that it reached a natural stopping point (for him). On the other hand, as I mentioned, he wishes nothing but the best to any other branch that springs up. I'm sure he would be interested to see any of them go their own way and thrive. The one thing he is not ready to do is give up the site. It is the one connection to his project that he retains. He has every right to do that... for as long as he wants. Any suggestion that he owes us or is responsible to us is selfish hubris.

Carcophan
  • Members
  • 1578 posts
  • Last active: Nov 27 2013 06:46 PM
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2008

Wow, Carcophan. That's a lot of random observations. I almost gave up and went to bed, but in the end I powered through. :p

Ha, well thanks for sticking it through. Sometimes the Coors Lite can make me 'winded'.

@Sinkfaze, yes that was my direction

sinkfaze
  • Moderators
  • 6367 posts
  • Last active: Nov 30 2018 08:50 PM
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2008

As I pointed out above, there is no consensus amongst all the developers of other branches.


We don't need a consensus amongst all the developers of other branches, the official build of AHK is Chris' product and Chris' product alone. What he says with the official build is what goes.

Us wanting him to do certain things does not make it his responsibility. Chris has the right to do what he wants. He does not owe us anything.


He doesn't owe us, he owes the product that he has created.

tank
  • Administrators
  • 4345 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active: May 02 2019 09:16 PM
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2007
as to the point of consensus amongst developers.

there has been some consensus
Lexikos has merrged from Seans,Fincs and jackieku. lets not forget there have been serious branches merged and updated.

Titan seems more towards a truly portable version of the same command set while Lexikos seems more intent on windows OS specific missing functionality. those seem to be the only 2 current serious splits amongst them.

But how much of AHK's versitility is lost by moving outside windows?

Since it is essentially a windows based product shouldnt more of the future changes come from Lexikos branch?

the way i see it it is Chris's view that differ from his users and developers. Chris will ever be an Icon in this area but if the time has actually come perhaps its time to move aside or at the very least formally announce he is done with the product at this point.
Never lose.
WIN or LEARN.

jaco0646
  • Moderators
  • 3165 posts
  • Last active: Apr 01 2014 01:46 AM
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2006

What he says with the official build is what goes.

Agreed. He has said there will be no update in the foreseeable future. I think this is all the more reason for IronAHK in particular to be rebranded and leave the AutoHotkey name behind. It would then be the official build... of itself.

there has been some consensus

To be honest, I haven't followed any other version closely enough; but that is good news. I thought the biggest trouble users are facing with the versions is choosing one. Perhaps the choice is simpler than it has been made out to be. Should something be added to (or removed from) hugov's contribution on the Wiki?

tank
  • Administrators
  • 4345 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active: May 02 2019 09:16 PM
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2007

To be honest, I haven't followed any other version closely enough; but that is good news. I thought the biggest trouble users are facing with the versions is choosing one. Perhaps the choice is simpler than it has been made out to be. Should something be added to (or removed from) hugov's contribution on the Wiki?

I made some minor update to it i more get the impression Hugo is trying to give credits as well and i had forgotten the dll and windows CE versions but those have completely specific uses so dont count in the confusion
Never lose.
WIN or LEARN.

guest3456
  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --
honestly, i would rate myself an above average ahk user, and for me the only choice is whether or not i should take up ahk_L or not. there really is no other alternative branch. i hesitate to do so because of compatibility reasons. most people know the AHK brand and not some _L variant. since most scripts are shared open source, its another hurdle to get users to download the _L branch to use the source. do i really wwant to invest the time continuing to write AHK scripts when theres no gaurantee that there will be future active development of the main brand? its similar to the concerns Laszlo expressed

it seems simple enough for Chris to just merge in the features of ahk_L, or open up a public git repo or something where everyone can contribute to the source, he can let Lexikos manage it so he doesnt have to bother, and then the brand can continue and thrive

codybear
  • Members
  • 600 posts
  • Last active: Feb 09 2015 12:41 PM
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2009
I kind of agree...especially about the unsure part about continuing development.

I personally think all of the authors that are going off and doing the multiple different branches of AutoHotkey should work together with Chris (if he chooses to continue his work) and create a "super" AutoHotkey version. When I say all the different branches I mean the original, _L, IronAHK, and every other one. They all have unique features and it would be AMAZING if they were all included in one variation instead of multiple ones.

Just my thought on the subject.

guest3456
  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --
but the other authors can't work together with Chris if Chris doesn't allow it, thats the point that was made earlier in the thread.

codybear
  • Members
  • 600 posts
  • Last active: Feb 09 2015 12:41 PM
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2009
I meant if he decides to continue AHK...If not then the others should go off on their own and create something new together to unify and create something amazing. As was stated before, something with more than one developer tends to be better and stick around longer...

Carcophan
  • Members
  • 1578 posts
  • Last active: Nov 27 2013 06:46 PM
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2008

I meant if he decides to continue AHK...If not then the others should go off on their own and create something new together


Isn't this how how AHK grew from AutoIt?

And keeping in that vein, should we all abandon AHK for whatever the next iteration of the language progresses into? (don't focus on the word 'abandon' please)

jaco0646
  • Moderators
  • 3165 posts
  • Last active: Apr 01 2014 01:46 AM
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Yes, I believe so. I was excited to hear yesterday that IronAHK is near version .7 (GUI support) and also that it will break compatibility after version 1 (which I applaud).

But some of the best advice, which you can find repeated across software development forums, is to choose the right tool for the job. Thinking that you can learn one language, any language, that solves every problem efficiently is simply false. If it were true, there would only be one language; yet there are hundreds.

JoeSchmoe as guest
  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --

Thank goodness for the active developers we do have. Just imagine where we'd be without the contributions of Lexikos, Sean, Polyethene and Majkinetor, just the few that immediately come to mind. Certainly there are others, but remove the unofficial contributions of just those I've named and AHK is much less capable and much less exciting. It's languished advancement would be much more obvious and I'm sure many more in the community would be gone already.

Just my two cents.

Amen! Thanks, guys... I can't tell you how bummed I would be without at least one person still actively developing.

  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --

...it will break compatibility after version 1 (which I applaud).

...I hope the post-v1 breakage is for the better, not to make it a strict/rigid syntax.

donv
  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Last active: Mar 27 2013 11:02 PM
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Seems to me that we should define the vision of AHK2 in business terms and objectives - taking cues from projects which have survived the test of time and which have been adopted as successful languages.
We should agree on the core charter of the AHK2, what are the core paradigms of it’s existence, why do this vs. that. We should discuss, and debate, and then intelligently collaborate and deliberately ‘decide’.
Once we have decided on the management framework, and we have decided on the vision for AHK2 (a process where Chris was hopefully involved), action should be taken.
IMO, Chris should be compensated for his work. This can be done by correctly structuring the business plan.
Just because the core charter involves open source, it doesn’t prohibit us from building a supported commercialized (revenue generating) version of AHK2.
I personally do not have time to drive this process, but I am a fan of AHK and want it to succeed. I lead a successful company doing world class software which is being adopted by some of the largest tier-1 OEM’s in the world.
In Steven Covey’s book The Eighth Habit, the concept is that after you have become successful, that you use your skills and abilities to inspire others to greatness. It is with that concept that Chris should participate as he see’s fit moving forward, but should adopt a personal paradigm of seeing his baby ‘AHK’ continue to evolve to greatness.
If these things can be done, there is no doubt that the community will stand behind the new version, and adopt it.
There are some amazing individuals participating in AHK, I read some of your code and am amazed and humbled. Use these same skills – to determine:
1. What should the business structure of AHK2 be?
a. Form of organization: <!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c<!-- m -->)
b. Who is on the board?
c. … >> much more <<
2. What are the core paradigms of AHK2:
a. Does it support Windows only?
b. Does it support Windows CE.. etc
c. Does it need support for arrays..?
d. What should AHK2 do better than other languages; C#, VBS, etc?
e. Blah…. >> much more <<

3. Timetable for action / action plan:
a. By 01/01/11 we plan to have formulated our plan and plan to have Chris approve or disapprove and move collectively forward in the same direction.
b. How do we raise capital
c. Which core individuals have the time to assist
d. What other assistance is required; (legal?)
If you guys are really interested in driving this, then IMO these things need to happen.
With that said, I am grateful for the work of Chris and countless others who have build a language and functions which I (a non-programmer) can use to get things done.


Thank you.
-don