{Split topic} On continuing support for AutoHotkey 1.0

[fincs]

(...) excluding AutoHotkey Basic users would be excluding a majority (yes, I said majority) of all AutoHotkey users.

(...) not for the minority that use AutoHotkey v1.1+. As users convert to AutoHotkey v1.1+, as I hope they will, this library will still work (I hope).

Kinda offtopic, but I'd just want to throw in my two cents.

I disagree on v1.1 users being a minority. If all, v1.0 is the minority now since it has been at least 3 years since it started being superseeded by v1.1 in the download page of the other site (with on and off periods, mostly on; see below); and most new scripts, libraries and tools are no longer written for v1.0 anymore.

Normally I wouldn't mind which version of AutoHotkey people use/want to use, but we are currently under an exceptional circumstance that potentially threatens the project, please read below.

The admin of the other site does not want v1.1 to succeed for some reason which nobody yet understands and may in the end be just attributed to fanatism. He wants to kill (or marginate) v1.1 and promote v1.0 forever, halting development and progress of AutoHotkey; essentially travelling back in time to 2009. The recent download link switcheroo has already hurted newcomers; and I have a list of posts somewhere of such people. Some of these people were trying to get gaming or general Office/IE automation code to work; which IMO are core AutoHotkey features (as much as I despise people using gaming scripts).

By continuing to produce v1.0 compatible scripts we are not helping the community at all, in fact we are hurting it by indirectly promoting or allowing v1.0 usage. Doing this will only make the v1.0 usage share continue to grow since scripts are still compatible with it, and its users will put off the v1.1 upgrade indefinitely due to the principle of "don't fix what ain't broken". This is augmented by that other admin heavily promoting v1.0.

You've said that v1.1 is slower than v1.0. This is true; however it is also true that the upcoming v2 (whose mission is to get rid of many ugly aspects of the AutoHotkey language amongst other things) is considerably faster than v1.1 (and IIRC the statistics, also faster than v1.0). This is due to the removal of legacy baggage that slows down script execution. Moreover, this speed difference is marginal; and it doesn't matter anyway for 99% of AutoHotkey's use cases.

In short: more v1.0 compatible scripts and v1.0 promotion (by that other admin) means more v1.0 users. More v1.0 users means stagnation of AutoHotkey. Stagnation ultimately leads to death.

[jballi]

Yes, this is off topic. Please move your post to a new topic (you decide the forum) and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

[guest3456]

By continuing to produce v1.0 compatible scripts we are not helping the community at all, in fact we are hurting it by indirectly promoting or allowing v1.0 usage. Doing this will only make the v1.0 usage share continue to grow since scripts are still compatible with it, and its users will put off the v1.1 upgrade indefinitely due to the principle of "don't fix what ain't broken". This is augmented by that other admin heavily promoting v1.0.

I strongly disagree. You are misplacing the blame.

This divide threatens the entire AutoHotkey brand and language as a whole, irrespective of v1.0/1.1. I have always been against this split of the community.

As new users try to run scripts, with whichever version they have, and the scripts don't work, they will just say "fuck it" and move on, to AutoIT or whatever else 'just works'. This is the worst possible scenario for the future of AHK

What you are suggesting is the same as Poly only in the reverse. He wants 1.0, you want 1.1. It does seem that Poly wants AHK 1.1 to fail. He has never to my knowledge expressed what his problem is. I have speculated that it was due to all of his work on IronAHK which was built on 1.0, in which he attempted to do add some objects like dictionaries and the like. And perhaps AHK_L was just more successful and he took offense that his IronAHK work was in vain. Who knows. But he does have a grudge it seems.

The focus should not be on instructing users to write only 1.1 compatible scripts to force the upgrade. The focus should be on uniting the community, so that there is no split in the first place. That means working/negotiating with Poly. Yes of course this is near impossible. But you shouldn't condemn authors for trying to make their libraries as compatible as they can. Thats ridiculous. Authors should STRIVE for compatibility, so that new users of their scripts will have the easiest experience possible, and therefore stick with the AHK language for a longer term.

Unfortunately, http://www.autohotkey.com is still the main face of the brand, given the history of the domain as well as the name itself. Until a consensus is reached, my opinion is that compatibility across versions should be the goal. If/when the community unites and there is a single direction going forward, then of course all users should be encouraged to write scirpts with the newest version in mind. Because of course, that would be the natural result. Don't fix the symptom, fix the cause.

(you may want to re-title this thread to something more applicable and just note the split in the OP)

[fincs]

As new users try to run scripts, with whichever version they have, and the scripts don't work, they will just say "fuck it" and move on, to AutoIT or whatever else 'just works'. This is the worst possible scenario for the future of AHK

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the reason the scripts don't work in the first place is because of the whim of a stubborn admin who doesn't even use AutoHotkey anymore or contribute anything at all.

What you are suggesting is the same as Poly only in the reverse. He wants 1.0 you want 1.1. It does seem that Poly wants AHK 1.1 to fail.

Except that it makes no sense to say that I want AHK 1.0 to fail. I want AutoHotkey to succeed, and in order for that to happen its development must continue. Bugs need to be fixed. Enhancements have to be made. By stalling on v1.0 this is simply not happening. AutoHotkey v1.0 doesn't have official support for Windows 7 or higher, the sound functions are broken on Vista and higher, automation is totally broken on the increasingly popular high DPI (Retina) screens, international users are screwed due to the lack of Unicode support, and there's a long list of bugs that have been fixed in v1.1.

The focus should not be on instructing users to write only 1.1 compatible scripts to force upgrade. The focus should be on uniting the community, so that there is no split in the first place.

What you say would make sense if the two branches were actively developed. v1.1 is actively developed, supported, tested and bugfixed today in 2014; whereas v1.0 is not and will probably never be again (the last update was in 2009, that is, five years ago). It is the same exact thing as saying people should write Windows 95-compatible programs today in 2014 just because some users (which yes, they still exist) are still using it.

That means working/negotiating with Poly. Yes of course this is near impossible.

I used to be the first to support negotiations with polyethene and try to give him a second chance despite his wrongdoing. However he has lied to, insulted and fooled us again, and again, and again, and again, and again. And this is why IMO he has lost all credibility and I will not ever believe anything of what he says.

Unfortunately, http://www.autohotkey.com is still the main face of the brand, given the history of the domain as well as the name itself. Until a consensus is reached, my opinion is that compatibility across versions should be the goal.

IMO, the best thing to do is to resist polyethene's constant attacks on the community; guiding and supporting users (yes, on autohotkey.com) in everything they need to effectively cancel out said attacks -- informing them of v1.1 and explaining why they should upgrade. This is of course not to be taken as propaganda, but as an attempt to help neuter the mess that has been made. Let me point out that it is not newcomers' choice to use v1.0 -- they are victims. The best way we can respond is by making these attacks ineffective (or as ineffective as possible).

But you shouldn't condemn authors for trying to make their libraries as compatible as possible.

My words have never had the intention of condemning authors (and therefore nobody should take offence of them), they have always been intended as a reminder of the current situation and why continuing to support v1.0 is harmful for the community and the language.

[guest3456]

I think we agree more so than we disagree.

Poly has taken matters into his own hands and abused the power that he holds over the main domain. He is personally creating the "stalling" of the progress of AHK, by linking back to the 1.0 download. He has been unwilling to cooperate because of whatever grudge he holds. This sucks. But, like it or not, this is our current situation. How do we deal with it?

I'm not saying that we should intentionally direct users to 1.0. We shouldn't. Poly has done that on his site, which is unfortunate, but it is the reality for now. IMO, we should direct users to 1.1 as much as possible, while still supporting 1.0. I don't think we should be exclusionary. I think that hurts the AHK userbase as a whole. That is my sole point: that by further creating the divide in the community, the userbase suffers, and AHK as a whole suffers and has less of a chance to succeed (however you define that). See the below example that I have in mind.

I agree with everything that you say below. This is how we should deal with it for supporting and helping users:

IMO, the best thing to do is to resist polyethene's constant attacks on the community; guiding and supporting users (yes, on autohotkey.com) in everything they need to effectively cancel out said attacks -- informing them of v1.1 and explaining why they should upgrade. This is of course not to be taken as propaganda, but as an attempt to help neuter the mess that has been made. Let me point out that it is not newcomers' choice to use v1.0 -- they are victims. The best way we can respond is by making these attacks ineffective (or as ineffective as possible).

However my original post was based on how script and library authors should deal with the situation as well, since I originally thought that this was what you were responding to.

My words have never had the intention of condemning authors (and therefore nobody should take offence of them), they have always been intended as a reminder of the current situation and why continuing to support v1.0 is harmful for the community and the language.

I'm just voicing my disagreement with your last statement.

I think continuing to support v1.0 in scripts and libraries is beneficial for the community, not the opposite. 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. But by causing them headaches early on in their exposure to AHK, they may get frustrated and leave and never come back. For this reason I think its better to make scripts as compatible as possible, supporting both versions for now.

Consider this example: New user reads an article on LifeHacker about how AHK can help him do xyz task. He goes to autohotkey.com, clicks download. He's got 1.0. This problem can be attributed to Poly. He tries to run a script designed for 1.1. Errors abound. Users says to himself, "fuck this shit, AHK doesn't work/too hard to use/i can't figure it out/etc".

So some new users are now victims because Poly links an outdated version. But IMO its better to keep these users around, and using AHK, and making sure their scripts work as much as possible. Then when it comes time when they ask for more advice and want to learn more, they can be instructed as in your quote above, or in doc pages, etc. Maybe even a link and description on the ahkscript.org homepage summarizing the situation. Perhaps I will throw something together to show what I mean.

Of course, if we could ever come to terms with Poly and find out his gripes and perhaps come to some agreement, then the community could move forward in a united fashion, and then this whole discussion is moot. Although that would be the ideal, as it is now it seems unlikely.

JMHOs

[just me]

Well, AHK 1.1 is AutoHotkey whereas AHK 1.0/Basic/Legacy is outdated for about 5 years now. It may be right, that many (a majority?) of users still use 1.0 and shy away from the change to 1.1. But, as long as they get 'superior' support, why should they?

Writing new 1.0 compatible scripts today prevents the use of all advanced 1.1 features. That's why these scripts cannot lead users to make the change. IMO, if at all, it would be better to release two versions so users are enabled to compare and make their decision.

Also, you should take account of the developers. Polyethene didn't do anything at least since the release of 1.0.48.05 (I think the guess about IronAHK is right). Only lexikos and a few others are still working on 1.1 and v2. By and by it might affect their motivation if a 'majority' of users refuses to use their work and is getting full support anyway. On the other hand, every language not maintained any more (i.e. AHK 1.0) is already dead, even though some users refuse to accept / won't recognize it.

That's why I agree with fincs.

viewtopic.php?p=3872#p3872

I think that AHK 1.0 support isn't needed for scripts posted in this forum. majkinators's original script will run on AHK 1.0 forever. On the other hand, support of AHK 1.0 is preventing you from using the advanced features of AHK 1.1 and makes things unnecessary complex.
Them be my thoughts.

Personally I decided to stop support in polyethene's forum. It's a fact, that his site is much more prominent than this, but as long as anyone will get full support there, users have no reason to switch, and even worse, polyethene has no reason to change his mind.

[guest3456]

Also, you should take account of the developers. Polyethene didn't do anything at least since the release of 1.0.48.05 (I think the guess about IronAHK is right). Only lexikos and a few others are still working on 1.1 and v2. By and by it might affect their motivation if a 'majority' of users refuses to use their work and is getting full support anyway. On the other hand, every language not maintained any more (i.e. AHK 1.0) is already dead, even though some users refuse to accept / won't recognize it.

As fincs said, the 'majority' of users are not using 1.0 by choice, but rather simply because that's what the link downloads.
But its a good point. Lexikos' motivation or lack thereof as a result of lack of usage of 1.1 should also be considered. I overlooked that.

It may be right, that many (a majority?) of users still use 1.0 and shy away from the change to 1.1. But, as long as they get 'superior' support, why should they?
...
Personally I decided to stop support in polyethene's forum. It's a fact, that his site is much more prominent than this, but as long as anyone will get full support there, users have no reason to switch, and even worse, polyethene has no reason to change his mind.

Fair enough. But even if users did have a reason to switch (for example you suggesting that people stop helping with 1.0, thereby giving users a reason to switch), many users still don't even know about the ahkscript.org domain and so they wouldn't even know how to switch unless someone specifically told them.

[guest3456]

@fincs / ALL

What do you think of this simple change to the homepage?

--
CURRENT:
--

--
NEW:
--

--

[just me]

What do you think of this simple change to the homepage?

I like the idea!

[nnnik]

@guest3456
Your Idea is it to make every script compatible for everyone so that we can keep both versions.
What will happen as soon as we move on to AHK v2?
All 1.0 and 1.1 Scripts will be broken anyway.
If we need to create 1.0 scripts we might as well switch over to it.

The only possible solution I could think of is using a Launcher file with our scripts that test if Version is not 1.0 and display a warning that tells the user to update (with links here).

[guest3456]

@guest3456
Your Idea is it to make every script compatible for everyone so that we can keep both versions.

No, my idea is not to 'keep both versions'. We shouldn't "keep" v1.0.
I'm merely suggesting that script authors attempt to support 1.0. I don't care if they do or not. Its just my opinion.

The only possible solution I could think of is using a Launcher file with our scripts that test if Version is not 1.0 and display a warning that tells the user to update (with links here).

I suggested this recently. Just add this to the top of your scripts/libraries:

Code: Select all

if (A_AhkVersion < "1.1.13.01")
   MsgBox, This script/func requires AHK v1.1.13.01 or greater

I think that this is nicer for a new user to see rather than some unexpected error that they cannot decipher. At the same time it also informs them of a newer version. If authors choose not to support 1.0 then they could at least use this

[nnnik]

No, my idea is not to 'keep both versions'. We shouldn't "keep" v1.0.
I'm merely suggesting that script authors attempt to support 1.0. I don't care if they do or not. Its just my opinion.

We shouldn't keep 1.0 in the community but we should make compatible scripts so that the 1.0 Users don't have to switch. Wich is the same as attempting to keep it.

[nnnik]

My Chrome just did some weird things.
Sorry for that.

[lexikos]

So I'm guessing it was you who edited my post instead of replying. Thanks for that.

Here's my original post:

I don't think we should be exclusionary.

I personally don't see any problem in excluding users who are unwilling to update AutoHotkey. Those users have chosen to exclude themselves from all the benefits of v1.1; no one forced them to do it. They are still not excluded from participating in the forums.

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.

If I'm trying to solve a problem using software, I have no problem whatsoever updating said software. If a user wants to use a script to solve their problem and that script requires v1.1, they can just install v1.1. The key is to make it clear what your script requires. I would hope that most visitors of this site already have v1.1 or know that they might need it.

There are always going to be scripts that aren't worth writing in v1.0, such as COM-based scripts. The sooner each user updates to v1.1, the less chance they will have of running into those sort of problems.

Users says to himself, "fuck this shit, AHK doesn't work/too hard to use/i can't figure it out/etc". ... But IMO its better to keep these users around, and using AHK, and making sure their scripts work as much as possible.

I disagree. I don't care whether they come or go, but objectively, I suppose that those users are the ones more likely to 'take' from the community without giving anything back.

What do you think of this simple change to the homepage?

Looks good.

Just add this to the top of your scripts/libraries:

Keep in mind that any script which uses objects (specifically, the dot operator) or uses any of the new commands or functions will simply not load in v1.0, so would not display the message. However, I suppose you could do this:

Code: Select all

if (A_AhkVersion < "1.1.13.01")
   try MsgBox, This script/func requires AHK v1.1.13.01 or greater

The result on v1.0:

Error at line x.

Line Text: try MsgBox, This script/func requires AHK v1.1.13.01 or greater
Error: This line does not contain a recognized action.

The program will exit.

[nnnik]

Code: Select all

if (A_AhkVersion < "1.1.13.01")
   try MsgBox, This script/func requires AHK v1.1.13.01 or greater

The result on v1.0:

Error at line x.

Line Text: try MsgBox, This script/func requires AHK v1.1.13.01 or greater
Error: This line does not contain a recognized action.

The program will exit.

I think that's the effect he wanted.
It displays a message that tells the user to update.

[lexikos]

Yes, that was the idea...

Without try, v1.0 would just fail at some other point in the script and (still) never execute the version check.

[nnnik]

Didn't see that your code is different. :S

[joedf]

I do like the homepage idea.

[fincs]

What do you think of this simple change to the homepage?

You nailed it.

[tank]

I have only to say.. my opinion
Dont smack someone who labels a script as compatable with v1. Otherwise we are just assholes. The idea is to support people not enforce dogma and doctrine. Nothing wrong with recommending a new useful feature only found in the latest and greatest. But smacking someone for not using those features on an otherwise working script isn't productive
End opinion