Talk:AutoIt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] code examples

how about code examples??

Code examples in the sense of teaching how to code in AutoIt would not be relevant however one example of a simple program may be 86.147.190.162 20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

--BinaryBrother in reply to 86.147.190.162

Code examples would be as defined... An Example of Code. You can find more discussed Code Examples on the AutoIt Example Forums, but please be warned. As stated by the Forum header on the Example Forum, It is NOT for general support. General Support is reserved for this URL, http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/index.php?showforum=2 .

[edit] 'frowned upon' comment

I'm not a programmer, but I'd have to say that usage of this program to bot in various games is probably one of the most challenging and elegant uses of the technology possible. Take Diablo 2 for example..Bots can avoid enemies, pick and choose which items to pick up, which to sell and which to keep in the stash, kill bosses or seek out specific types of opponents..etc, the list goes on and on. I understand that using AutoIt in this manner is contrary to the spirit of the game, but the ingenuity needed to even approach solving some problems in games in an automatic fashion beats the crap out of telling the computer to input a certain text sequence in a specific text box after a specific set of conditions is met.

Is this so looked down upon by the community? The author citing sources would be helpful.


-PhPh

I’m a long-time user of AutoIt (both v2 and v3) and I can tell you that historically there have been some major problems with bot uses of AutoIt in the community, particularly on the forums. I have not been active on the forums for a couple of years, but there used to be huge threads by people wanting to edit some AutoIt code they found for botting purposes. Since many of these people were not inclined to learn the language (they just wanted someone to fix it for them without having to put in any work themselves) they put an undue burden on the forums and eventually these posts came to be a source of contention.
I agree with the above comment that the use of automated scripts to perform often-complex tasks that a game demands can be a creative use of the technology. However, from a community perspective (specifically the AutoIt forums), most users of these bots were not the programmers of them nor willing to learn what was necessary to make changes to the code. Very few people programmed the vast majority of the bots the AutoIt forums saw support requests for, and almost no posters were willing to put the effort in to accomplish the tasks they sought help with.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
--Pekster 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
But the claim is that this use is frowned upon. You only listed reasons why we should dislike the botters not why botting is frowned upon. Also it is worthy of note the annoying often obnixious botters always seem to find help, which implies that some do support their efforts. 72.21.232.44 04:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OO: Not an omission, but by design.

Just thought I would add my understanding, which is that AutoIt is by design not an object-oriented language, which therefore does not use namespaces, classes, dotted notation, etc. -The creators being of the opinion that these features are not appropriate to a scripting language, and that the insistence on an OO syntax is one of the key reasons for other scripting languages being excessively difficult to use.

--Anteaus 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC) -Also a user since v2 days ;)

That's fine, although, just to clarify, the issue of OO being left out does still warrant inclusion in the article since that is one feature that users have asked about quite a bit; it is found in some very well-known "scripting languages"; and some would consider it a "limitation" ... despite the fact that it was intentionally designed that way. dr.ef.tymac 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


--User:Brian R Hunter 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As another programmer familiar with AutoIt since v2 and familiar with a wealth of programming languages including many OO, I agree with most of the comment from Anteaus. The 'limitation' however is to my mind a strength as it provides a simple to learn procedural language as an alternative to other overly complex (if elegant) langauges. For any programmer familiar with this type of 'BASIC' syntax, AutoIT is extremely easy to learn and extremely powerful for automation and other programming tasks on Windows. The authors have not only produced a superb product with an exceptional help guide they have given it away for the benefit of all. It compares favourably with many commercial products I have used over the years. Its integration with windows provides an ease of use in producing scripts that I challenge anyone to find an equal (with or without OO features).

[edit] Limitations

The section on 'Limitations' added by 192.234.223.100 whilst probably true does not seem to sit easily in the encyclopaedia. As with all programming tools there are limitations and restrictions on what it can be used for. Where a feature is 'required' by a user it should be addressed to the authors. Listing every thing a programming tool cannot do is obviously a non-starter. I am unclear as to the useful significance of the 'limitations' mentioned.

I propose removing the section unless there is some justification for keeping it. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As is, I agree with removal due to questions of OR and POV, but this is not a condemnation of the content. This would be a valid section if it was re-spun as criticism published by a review or other usable source. If another editor cares to find reliable sources that support these statements, they can stay, but no one is obligated to wait. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Decided to keep the Limitations section and moved limitations documented in the Features section to an (hopefully) better structured Limitations section. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)