{Split topic} On continuing support for AutoHotkey 1.0

[fincs]

Nobody has "smacked" anyone for labeling a script as compatible with v1.

[just me]

Hi tank,

everybody is free to write AHK 1.0 scripts till the end of time (even if I won't support them in most cases). IMO, the question here is: Does it still make sense to write AHK 1.0 compatible scripts using AHK 1.1? They may run with both versions, but cannot be optimized neither for 1.0 nor 1.1. So those scripts are generally overcrowded with version checks, and AHK 1.1 only features are a priori excluded. I cannot see any advantage. And I don't think that having doubts about the sense has something to do with terms like dogma or doctrine.

[guest3456]

I like the idea!

Looks good.

I do like the homepage idea.

You nailed it.

If someone wants to do it, here's the change:

CURRENT:

Code: Select all

		<div class="pure-u-2-3">
        
			<h1>AutoHotkey</h1>

			<p><small><em>Welcome to AHKScript.org, a new community founded by a number of enthusiasts to promote the use of AutoHotkey.</em></small></p>

			<p>AutoHotkey (AHK) is a free, open-source macro-creation and automation software for Windows that allows users to automate repetitive tasks. It is driven by a scripting language that was initially aimed at providing keyboard shortcuts, otherwise known as hotkeys, that over time evolved into a full-fledged scripting language. 
			(<a href="http://ragnar-f.github.com/docs">de</a> - <a href="http://ahkcn.sourceforge.net/docs">帮助</a>)</p>

			<h4>Getting started might be easier than you think</h4>
			
			<p>Check out the <a href="/docs/Tutorial.htm">quick-start tutorial</a> for a brief overview of what you can do with AutoHotkey.</p>

		</div> <!-- /pure-u-2-3 -->

NEW:

Code: Select all

		<div class="pure-u-2-3">
        
			<h4>What is AutoHotkey?</h4>

			<p>AutoHotkey (AHK) is a free, open-source macro-creation and automation software for Windows that allows users to automate repetitive tasks. It is driven by a scripting language that was initially aimed at providing keyboard shortcuts, otherwise known as hotkeys, that over time evolved into a full-fledged scripting language. 
			(<a href="http://ragnar-f.github.com/docs">de</a> - <a href="http://ahkcn.sourceforge.net/docs">帮助</a>)</p>

			<h4>Why ahkscript.org?</h4>

			<p>AHKScript.org is a new community consisting of the active AutoHotkey developer(s) as well as other enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the old <i>autohotkey.com</i> domain is not under the control of the current developers, and it continues to promote an outdated version of the software. New users are encouraged to migrate and participate here at this new site. (<a href="http://ahkscript.org/foundation/history.html">More Info</a>)</p>

			<h4>Getting started might be easier than you think</h4>
			
			<p>Check out the <a href="/docs/Tutorial.htm">quick-start tutorial</a> for a brief overview of what you can do with AutoHotkey.</p>

		</div> <!-- /pure-u-2-3 -->

[joedf]

The homepage has been updated.

[elmo]

Evolution is frequently ascribed to "changes based on the environment". In truth evolution is actually changes "that improve survivability". The change happens first and the rewards come after. v1.1 adds, IMHO, the capabilities that will cause it to be used by progressively more people. In a sense, v1.1 is itself an evolutionary advantage like "improved vision" that will confer benefits on those who have it.
Sticking with the contrast for people who use the different versions, v1.1 users are also more likely to survive because they enjoy the support of key individuals like lexikos and fincs and justme and tank. Think of them as plentiful water and rich soil. Make no mistake, all participants are not created equal and v1.0 can not be the choice for new projects without these smarter people providing guidance.
Point being, v1.0 - and more specifically it's adherents - is/are already left behind in any new challenge.
Continuing with this evolution theme I would offer one suggestion and ask that the reader not reject it immediately.
v1.0 retains eyeballs and constituents "in part" because a search on ahkscript.org will show results on the a u t o h o t k e y site. On the surface this seems like a good thing - however - it is also a disservice to potential new users. Specifically, if a new user only knows about ahkscript.org, their first search will likely ensure that they end up "over there" and then the confusion starts.
The suggestion is that the "Documentation" results be exclusively from ahkscript.org and appear first. IMHO the "All" category should be dropped completely however that is less of a concern than having it be first. In any case, "All" and "Forum" search results should be demoted. Ideally, "Forum" could just be results for ahkscript.org and a new "Archives" could link to the forum results for the a u t o h o t k e y site.
When I first started it was on the a u t o h o t k e y site. I would estimate that 50% of the time I spent on the forum in my first six months was just trying to figure out which responses were for v1.0 and which were v1.1. Now that was truly primitive.
I love v1.1 and looking forward to v2

[joedf]

I like the idea!

Looks good.

I do like the homepage idea.

You nailed it.

If someone wants to do it, here's the change:

CURRENT:

Code: Select all

		<div class="pure-u-2-3">
        
			<h1>AutoHotkey</h1>

			<p><small><em>Welcome to AHKScript.org, a new community founded by a number of enthusiasts to promote the use of AutoHotkey.</em></small></p>

			<p>AutoHotkey (AHK) is a free, open-source macro-creation and automation software for Windows that allows users to automate repetitive tasks. It is driven by a scripting language that was initially aimed at providing keyboard shortcuts, otherwise known as hotkeys, that over time evolved into a full-fledged scripting language. 
			(<a href="http://ragnar-f.github.com/docs">de</a> - <a href="http://ahkcn.sourceforge.net/docs">帮助</a>)</p>

			<h4>Getting started might be easier than you think</h4>
			
			<p>Check out the <a href="/docs/Tutorial.htm">quick-start tutorial</a> for a brief overview of what you can do with AutoHotkey.</p>

		</div> <!-- /pure-u-2-3 -->

NEW:

Code: Select all

		<div class="pure-u-2-3">
        
			<h4>What is AutoHotkey?</h4>

			<p>AutoHotkey (AHK) is a free, open-source macro-creation and automation software for Windows that allows users to automate repetitive tasks. It is driven by a scripting language that was initially aimed at providing keyboard shortcuts, otherwise known as hotkeys, that over time evolved into a full-fledged scripting language. 
			(<a href="http://ragnar-f.github.com/docs">de</a> - <a href="http://ahkcn.sourceforge.net/docs">帮助</a>)</p>

			<h4>Why ahkscript.org?</h4>

			<p>AHKScript.org is a new community consisting of the active AutoHotkey developer(s) as well as other enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the old <i>autohotkey.com</i> domain is not under the control of the current developers, and it continues to promote an outdated version of the software. New users are encouraged to migrate and participate here at this new site. (<a href="http://ahkscript.org/foundation/history.html">More Info</a>)</p>

			<h4>Getting started might be easier than you think</h4>
			
			<p>Check out the <a href="/docs/Tutorial.htm">quick-start tutorial</a> for a brief overview of what you can do with AutoHotkey.</p>

		</div> <!-- /pure-u-2-3 -->

Oh wow... I didn't see this... I rewrote it from the image ;P

[toralf]

My personal opinion
I will always try to use the latest possible feature/bug fix.
When Chris was still working on AHK, I never looked back or cared about backward compatibility and I will not do it now. If someone wants to use recent scripts he should have a recent AHK on his machine.
The only thing that a script should state is with which version it got tested. Then it is up to the user to at least meet this version. If not, well, he is risking to have compatibility issues. I will not go over all the commands and find out when that command had it's latest bug fix to ensure that I specify the correct min requirement, by default all scripts should work with the latest version of AHK.

Regarding making Ahkscript.org more known. I'll update my signature in the old forum to direct new users to this forum and 1.1+. I still have a reasonable post count, so it should get some attention. Any suggestions on what I should add to my sig?

[tank]

i recently changed mine as well

Why ahkscript.org?

[joedf]

+1 I just completely deleted my signature and replaced it with the same thing.

[nnnik]

I changed mine once and got banned for that.
Luckily I could still access my settings afterwards.

[jNizM]

@toralf
this is the reason why I use headers with information about time, version, ... in my scripts

example

[tank]

@toralf
this is the reason why I use headers with information about time, version, ... in my scripts

example

A wise choice no matter what version

[toralf]

I changed my sig in the old forum
Hopefully i do not get banned
I haven't checked the sigs of other high posters. But I guess that a majority of the posts now have a ref to this forum

[toralf]

I did a little research on the AHK.com board.
It has roughly 500.000 posts. I went through the first page of users with highest post counts and looked at their signatures and last active dates:

Code: Select all

User        #ofPosts  Last active    Signature 
=======================================================          
Chris       10727     N/A            no sig              
Lexikos      9441     N/A            ahkscript.org link  
engunneer    9162     Feb 2014                           
SKAN         9105     N/A            no sig              
Leef_me      8316     July 2014      no sig              
HotKeyIt     7034     July 2014                          
PhiLho       6850     Jan 2012                           
sinkfaze     6365     N/A            ahkscript.org link  
polyethene   5517     June 2014                          
SoLong...    4999     N/A                        
Laszlo       4713     March 2012     no sig              
majkinetor   4512     October 2013   no sig              
nimda        4368     January 2014                       
MasterFocus  4322     N/A                                
tank         4218     June 2014      ahkscript.org link  
toralf       4032     July 2014      ahkscript.org link  
TLM          3819     N/A            no sig              
VxE          3622     October 2013   ahkscript.org link  
None         3199     April 2014     no sig              
jaco0646     3165     March 2014     no sig

Out of these 27678 posts have a link to ahkscript.org.

If you know someone better from above list, you could reach out to the people that haven't been active a long time and maybe tell them about ahkscript.org.
Chances are they have not heard about it and might be interested to participate again.

[tank]

I am ware of actively asking anyone to choose sides. Some of those listed no sig have made major contributions to support this domain and its content. Some have even worked behind the scenes to help reach Chris. Yet i wouldnt ask them to implement any sort of overt effort.
Majkinator logs into this site periodically but lurks without posting ( I saw you in the logs ) I think changing our sigs more or less acts as an invitation on its own.

[bobc119]

This describes my experience as a beginner/non-programmer with AHK over the last year:

When I think of this, I think of new users, non-programmers, who just want to cut and paste some code and get some scripts working to solve some of their problems. I would imagine that these numbers are many, and that this is how most people start their education about AHK. Then, they learn more, and soon enough are active in using AHK regularly.

As a beginner, AHK (like programming in general) was very overwhelming.

I was afraid to upgrade to AHK_L because I didn't know enough about programming to be confident that I could deal with the big differences that everyone talked about. And besides, my little scripts were working fine with v1.0

Then one day I found a library that required v1.1, I didn't realize this, tried to use it, and it gave me an error. I went back to the original post and that's where the author had written in large red letters "Requires AHK_L".
This is what pushed me to download AHK_L finally.

This is how we should deal with it for supporting and helping users:

informing them of v1.1 and explaining why they should upgrade.

What would be helpful is a page that could be linked to, explaining (in simple non-programmer terms) why a beginner should absolutely be using v1.1, describing the differences they may experience, and especially how simple it is.

This would be a very simple solution for authors (if they choose) to write "Requires v1.1" and linking directly to that explanation page. Most likely, beginners are the only ones that really need to see "Requires v1.1" in a description. This would have helped me tremendously in the beginning.

[tank]

the non programmer reason is as simple as for support of other language characters and new operating systems.

outside of that.... I'm afraid we get into explanations only a programmer would latch onto.
Non - programmers arent likely to appreciate while and for loops, real arrays, com, objects, etc. They may appreciate a post someone offers that uses them but the terms and methods will be mostly meaningless

[fincs]

the non programmer reason is as simple as for support of other language characters and new operating systems.

There are more reasons that may interest non-programmers: native support for reliably automating Microsoft Office and IE (using COM), more Gui stuff (such as unlimited Guis with arbitrary custom names, ActiveX support for embedding stuff such as web browsers, Link controls, automatic hotkeys in menus, embedding custom controls avoiding the need for DllCall...), more hotkey/hotstring improvements, #InputLevel, #If and other miscellaneous additions; not to mention lots of bugfixes.

[Coco]

A non-programmer reason: It can do everything that 1.0 can do, so no harm in switching. For the extra features, the user can choose whether to use/learn them or not, again no harm...
Reminds me of Microsoft Word, most users prefer it but they only utilize 1% of its features.

[tank]

you lost the non programmer at COM

native support for reliably automating Microsoft Office and IE (using COM), more Gui stuff (such as unlimited Guis with arbitrary custom names, ActiveX support for embedding stuff such as web browsers, Link controls

and

embedding custom controls avoiding the need for DllCall...),

Ill give you bugfixes and hotkey/hotstring improvements, for the non programmer. They arent going to write it.... they just arent. your concept of a non programer seems to be very different from what that actually means. if they cant read a line and understand exactly what it does they just aren't going to write it they will ask someone else to write it for them. they can benifet from other peoples work using these advances. which is a good thing for all. and they can even shorten the learning curve with examples in syntax to what they will find similar on other programming communities. but the very minute they understand( not just know it exists) what COM,ActiveX,the need for unlimited GUI, Embedding controls they leave behind the simple non programer behind. they have gone so far as to understand at least in concept what an object might be and how to think in loops and conditions. they become a beginner at programing and not just a simple script user (ScriptKiddie if you like). Like it or not and this is one place the data from my logs certainly matches autohotkey.com. the majority of visiters and users of this product are employing someone elses work. asking them to upgrade and citing the things outside of bug fixes and hotkeys will make eyes glaze over and loose interest. Say its for Most current version of windows and languages as well as more hotkeys and they understand this well enough to be convinced.

It makes no difference that those that support these users want these other features. if you present the same reasoning to those that answer posts as those that ask questions and search you will loose them.