121 replies to this topic

[Lancelot]

might be that you also had the idea but Peter uses it massively with sucess ... that is the difference

nope. What I say speeding up with caching is not a miracle and it has no relation with wb processing. (please read posts).

and back to topic: I do not have any problems with these escape sequences (or strict syntax or in your words "cryptic syntax").

Good for you, and as I wrote before
Welcome#$sto#$snew#$swinbuilder#$sera#$c#$sHappy#$scryptic#$ssyntaxing

be sure we could change none-cryptic to cryptic very easly since we are get used to make such changes all the time for a long while.

besides it is against what it was told on topics numerous times saying "optional"
and with making a silent update the day of wb080 release !!! (have you seen an annoucment anywhere saying winbuilder is now officially cryptic)
and most working lines on scripts is in fact wrong since they are against rule 3

besides it is not the way winbuilder advertised so far. It should be a easy to use builder for making bootable environments.

With Nuno's answer, now we learn, From now on officially winbuilder is a cryptic builder for making bootable environments.

Happy to all.

[Wonko the Sane]

Just to keep you peeps up to date, the 15 hours of
http://en.wikipedia....Awkward_silence
have elapsed.

Problem is, I have nothing to say now , as (mind you IMNSHO only) the amount of stubborness, childishness and overall absurdness accumulated in this thread made me speechless.

Some statistics , out of the 72 (seventytwo) replies I counted at the moment of this writing in this thread, we got:
http://www.boot-land...?...=10740&st=1
http://www.boot-land...?...=10740&st=2
http://www.boot-land...?...=10740&st=3
http://www.boot-land...?...=10740&st=5
http://www.boot-land...?...=10740&st=8
http://www.boot-land...?...10740&st=16
http://www.boot-land...?...10740&st=55 (and subsequent post by same user)
Which makes a nice 7, i.e. 10% of posts actually on topic and replying to OP initial requests, the remaining 90% being (with a small contribution by yours truly ) either some joking, some spites/vengeances, some otiose considerations or other completely off-topic and out-of-place comments.

Not bad.

I am sure that in the next couple of days boot-land members will be able to lower the percentage of proper, on-topic replies to below 5%, but since it could be taken as facilitating the entropy to further increase I won't contribute anymore to this folly.

I think I'll start a poll about this issue.



Wonko

[patsch]

@amalux:
yes since Peter said that this is a time improvement ... at the time I wrote my first post the question was if or not allow comma in quotes ... after that the discussion went on with no quotes and then I got the info that the escape sequences improve the time ...
btw you could also quote the first part of my post

@Lancelot:
I read all your posts ... god knows that I read all your posts and I read them carefully but if my answer does not fit in what you will point out (many many many times) I should correct it?

besides it is not the way winbuilder advertised so far. It should be a easy to use builder for making bootable environments.

and?
As I already pointed out: I'm a bad programmer but I wrote about 30 little scripts/apps and they all work in my win7rescuepe/nativeexwin7 ... it is easy if you keep it simple. Btw I also wrote a documentation about creating a rescue system with a detailed guide in creating app-scripts for a group of about 100 people ... nobody had problems with the syntax and with the complexity of winbuilder.

[Lancelot]

I'm a bad programmer

I am not even a programmer.

btw I also wrote a documentation about creating a rescue system with a detailed guide in creating app-scripts for a group of about 100 people ... nobody had problems with the syntax and with the complexity of winbuilder.

because currently winbuilder works against its new rules by tolerating quotes to lower voices. As I wrote many times before, this is not about the current winbuilder tolerating quotes. Rule put to script syntax silently with the day of wb080 annoucment (and check the annoucment page to find any info pointing to that if you can), hence with next and next releases of wb you will see none-crpytic codes will not work and new syntaxes will be established with only cryptic codes.

There is nothing to discuss, Nuno approve cryptic syntax rules. I write only with hope you understand.

[pscEx]

Hi Peter,

I fail to see why it is an either-or option.

Why can't we have a better WB with syntax which uses quotes and minimal use of escapes?

Why is a WB which has the enhanced syntax method (with new functions etc) which does not use quotes and increases everyday need for using escapes supposedly better?

Why can't we have a better WB with better syntax?

Regards,
Galapo.

@Galapo!
I really felt as you friend from the very beginning of the forum.
In the ICE-age we created a series of good new functions together.

But in the current stage I really feel sad.

My ideas to make WinBuilder better (and even the "Strict / Weak idea, which intended to hold current scripts untouched) is either not understood or not accepted.
For me it is not a question of "quotes", but rather a question of communication style ("many many many many many times loooooooooong time ago (now at least 3 links) or 'psc is lying') which let me decide to give up.

BTW: You can do me a favour:
Test ALL your 'non working' samples with the latest alpha I made, and tell us, which sample does not work.

Peter

[patsch]

There is nothing to discuss, Nuno approve cryptic syntax rules. I write only with hope you understand.

you are the person that discusses ... I understood what you wrote ... a long long long long time ago (damn, "many" does not fit ).

[amalux]

I think I'll start a poll about this issue.



Wonko

I think people have already voted

when an apostrophe is allowed, why not a comma?
how is a string stored within winbuilder that it could causes problems?
are there parser that have problems in distinguish between comma as a string and coma as a command?
In my opinion, in a string every literal should be allowed and not be represented by its escape sequence or other placeholders

(changed his mind)

For years it seemed clear to me that a comma inside quotes is OK and this was used several 100 times in my projects...

A lot of files would need changes and this would be a hard break in compatibillity.

I agree that sometimes it is neccesary to change things, but to me this seems like the first step towards text like below, because there are reasons to also not have spaces (to get rid of the quotes completely), and writing text like this is aboulutely a bad idea...

Echo,"I#$slike#$scommas#$sinside#$squotes#$c#$sand#$sspaces#$stoo#$s!"

Who can want this? Not me...

My vote: Allow commas, get rid of ANY escape characters.

I can't see any reason for using escape sequences at all. A lot of programming and scripting languages work find without them.

when an apostrophe is allowed, why not a comma?

In my opinion, in a string every literal should be allowed and not be represented by its escape sequence or other placeholders

All Lancelot and I want to see is that more common sense syntax should not be removed or supported by WB as Peter wants to see happen.

Regards,
Galapo.

as i can see finally psc wants to force this:

Echo,Hello#$c#$sI'm#$shere!

Nuno, cannot you see the nonsesnse here?

But to use the optional "Strict" parser which is running much faster, there are stronger rules. And every .script developer can decide voluntarily for the faster method.

Peter

I prefer a

echo,"Hello, I'm here!"

Make a source code readable by humans.
This should be the default setting, not a option.
Escape sequences are difficult to read. Use a escape sequence at a emergency only.
It's ridicilous to require a escape sequence inside a quote.

Are we going to allow complex expressions to be contained inside a variable, and if so, how far does it go? A variable inside a variable? To me, if we keep it SIMPLE - i.e. a comma (for better or worse) is used to separate
the parameters being passed in as arguments. If there is a variable, and it is going to have "commas" inside it, then they have to be either enclosed in quotes (i.e. have a way to get the quote into the variable) or it has to be the "escaped" comma.
I would certainly hope that 99+% of things could be properly expressed without the crazy #c.

My "vote" certainly is for simple, clear and consistent rules on the syntax. And that we always have full discussion, and write the manual (and get approval on the syntax, with a lot of examples) before we write the code. Speed of processing certainly 2nd place to clarity and consistency

Not trying to butt in on your discussion or anything, but what I don't understand is what the problem is. People want to use quotes as in every major scripting and programming environment. That's totally understandable and I would also have a hard time adapting to the escape character way. PSC on the other side wants to speed up the script processing. That's also an understandably important goal. What I don't understand is why he doesn't write a preprocessor that translates the slower syntax into the faster one upon script execution. Shouldn't be much of a problem if the syntax doesn't change in general. This way everyone would be happy. But what do I know. That's just how I would do it

6 pages and probably only 2 examples showing the use of , . I vote for readability. So I much prefer:

echo,"Hello, I'm here!"

Using " as a means to avoid escape sequences is common in all languages I have used.

etc.

[pscEx]

... after that the discussion went on with no quotes and then I got the info that the escape sequences improve the time ...
btw you could also quote the first part of my post

Sorry that I have to disappoint you:
in alpha 81.0.0.28 to have the escape rather the comma, does not speed up processing.
Reason: Because the majority of 2 members out of 35000 members demanded, that is not implemented.

Peter

[amalux]

@patsch,

Wanna change your vote back?

[pscEx]

BTW: You can do me a favour:
Test ALL your 'non working' samples with the latest alpha I made, and tell us, which sample does not work.

No sample, but EVERYBODY complains!

?

Also other members may give a sample,.
But please not "as said many many many many times loooooooooong time ago" and no links.

Please three or four or ... lines of code here.

Peter

[Lancelot]

No sample, but EVERYBODY complains!

EVerybody complains for existing rule 3 ?????

and not existing quote rule ?????

Sadly both the writer of the rule (=psc) and Nuno decide to keep silence for days about the written rule which still exists there.

If your above statement is correct (lines are working) why there is not a rule saying quotes can be used (as written mannnny time to you on many topics before with giving ready texts.)

If the lines you refer are working, why there is such a rule which says they should not work.
In the past, we know these lines should be working.
Now either rule is wrong, or wb is wrong, or .......


everybody is asking same question, not an answer yet from psc who wrote both the syntax rule and wrote wb lines working.

[patsch]

@amalux:
no, not really ... it is a pity that the effort of one person to improve a project is handled like here in these several threads and therefore I understand how Peter reacts and why ...
I posted why I changed my opinion ('cause the state of information changed) and I still believe that an improvement of speed (and I think also of consistence) is it worth to think about another syntax even if that synatx is in the first moment not as userfriendly as the old one.
And now i wait for Lancelot to interrupt again and his advice that I have to reread the posts

[pscEx]

EVerybody complains for existing rule 3 ?????

and not existing quote rule ?????

Sadly both the writer of the rule (=psc) and Nuno decide to keep silence for days about the written rule which still exists there.

If your above statement is correct (lines are working) why there is not a rule saying quotes can be used (as written mannnny time to you on many topics before with giving ready texts.)

If the lines you refer are working, why there is such a rule which says they should not work.
In the past, we know these lines should be working.
Now either rule is wrong, or wb is wrong, or .......


everybody is asking same question, not an answer yet from psc who wrote both the syntax rule and wrote wb lines working.

Maybe my English is not understandable for you.
But I'm sure if you ask Google for

BTW: You can do me a favour:
Test ALL your 'non working' samples with the latest alpha I made, and tell us, which sample does not work.

it will tell you what is asked here.
Peter

[Lancelot]

and I still believe that an improvement of speed (and I think also of consistence) is it worth to think about another syntax even if that synatx is in the first moment not as userfriendly as the old one.

hi patsch,

I also think that users who are well occupied should gain advantage of speed with writing cryptic syntax.
That is the reason I gave psc the idea of seperating scripts syntax by a flag (either in main section or with another simpler way) before wb080 times.
As a result new comers and usual users could write within quotes, and some others can write crytpic syntax with gain of speed. psc happy, some advanced users happy, rest of the world happy, all happy.

Besides, psc above wrote preprocessing was done experimentally (which was asked by others in the past) which eventually would result with no need of cryptic codes with gaining speed advantage.


But instead of these, we get a bully syntax rule updated silently the day of wb080 release forcing cryptic syntax to all.

Besides we have working lines which are against this rule and shown as reference !!!!!!

[pscEx]

The last post tells me that I've been right with publishing WB development.

And it causes me also stopping in this really useful and advancing topic.

I'm sad to discuss with moaners.

Bye here, too!

Peter

[amalux]

All that's been missing all along is respectful, mature discourse; the questions asked are simple enough.

1) Is there a significant increase in processing speed by eliminating quotes etc. from script syntax? If so, continue; if not forget it.

2) Assuming above is yes, is it possible to handle this in preprocessing to allow continued use of user friendly syntax? If so, great! If not, continue.

3) Assuming above is no, should we take a vote to see how script developers feel about it or ??

This is how normal communication works but I'm beginning to see that here, all that is required is X

X) Force the change without discussion since Nuno and Peter (and patsch) like it and that's all that matters!


Everything else, it seems, is just a distraction from that foregone conclusion. I too see the futility in wasting more time on this and intend to move on to more important matters.

[MedEvil]

What do you say, if we change the topic title to something more descirptive, like LiveXP developers against the rest of the world?

[MedEvil]

All that's been missing all along is respectful, mature discourse;

How about reading your own postings again? Not an especialy good exsample for respectful, imo.

[amalux]

How about reading your own postings again? Not an especialy good exsample for respectful, imo.

Sorry I can't live up to your example

[patsch]

This is how normal communication works but I'm beginning to see that here, all that is required is X

X) Force the change without discussion since Nuno and Peter (and patsch) like it and that's all that matters!

omg ... what a foolish post
please show me where I stated to force this syntax ... please be not so naiv and purposely misunderstand the posts written like Lancelot

all I said was that I vote (and yes I changed my point of view and I argued why) for a change in the syntax if this is an improvement and I posted why I think that this is so, nothing else

[amalux]

omg ... what a foolish post

Thanks

[Brito]

LiveXP developers against the rest of the world?

There was already a topic for LiveXP developers to antagonize development decisions without interfering in other ongoing activities here in the forum: http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10702

But I guess it's more fun to write long topics about everything else, especially if they contain secret handshakes, silent magic encoded chars and enchanted scripting spells that can only be casted by the special .script developers.

Sorry if I don't reply every time someone mentions my name. On this topic I'd prefer to talk about facts and good or bad syntax examples than philosophical chit-chats, but that's just my opinion..

[Lancelot]

There was already a topic for LiveXP developers to antagonize development decisions without interfering in other ongoing activities here in the forum: http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10702

Topic created by moving posts from Galapo's topic where unrelevant replies rereplied. We did not open that topic. Besides all things inside is true.

But I guess it's more fun to write long topics about everything else, especially if they contain secret handshakes, silent magic encoded chars and enchanted scripting spells that can only be casted by the special .script developers.

HOW MANY times should I write it again and again. THERE IS NO SECRET from US. BUT FROM YOU.

But to use the optional "Strict" parser which is running much faster, there are stronger rules. And every .script developer can decide voluntarily for the faster method.

HAVE NOT YOU READ psc's post which was written many times all over boot-land on different topics and either today ??????
IS IT a SECRET, NOOOOOOOOOOO it was written mannnnny times everywhere on boot-land PUBLICKLY.

Sorry if I don't reply every time someone mentions my name. On this topic I'd prefer to talk about facts and good or bad syntax examples than philosophical chit-chats, but that's just my opinion..

FACT: Script_syntax updated SILENTLY by psc and now we see approved by Nuno where it simply writes cryptic-codes are winbuilder's code
This also SHOWS psc and Nuno SECRETLY come to an agreement behind doors.

FACT: Vote topic opened by Nuno (current topic) proves besides Nuno,psc,patch , Rest of the world asks for readable (none crptic syntax).

FACT: psc already wrote spliting of codes from cryptic vs non-cryptic is possible, BUT there is no rule around for that !!!! and if preprecessor works as he wrote even not needed.

FACT: psc already wrote preprocesser can be used which would be more easy for the rest of the world LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN PUBLICKLY FOR YEARS

FACT: Script_syntax updated silently which force cryptic codes as a rule. There is NO annoucment around anywhere for that. Only we notice with seeing the results, raise our voice.

FACT: Nuno continues FALSE accusations with distractive, unhonest posts


Nuno, please stop FALSE accusations. It is tired to write you are writing WRONG again.

You approve "cryptic codes" for Winbuilder, discussion finished. Further please do not continue FALSE accusation. Be happy with your decision.

[Galapo]

Projects like LiveXP are overly complex and winbuilder.exe cannot be expected to continue feeding this problem.

Instead of blaming a wb developer for trying to find a solution to .script developers, try adopting a simpler scripting because it is indeed possible when you put your mind to it.

Nuno, this is a gross over-exageration and betrays once again that you have been out of the world of maintaining projects for too long.

LiveXP has been exactly like what it has always been: nativeEx with additional app scripts and few other scripts adding some functionality. It comes in three varients: minimal, recommended, and complete. The recommended option is what is recommended by the project maintainers. It is basically nativeEx with a few extras.

The issue is not project complexity but what is accepted standard WB syntax and what is not. That's all I've been writing about. And for whatever reason you take this and start to speak of other things like a project being too complex. All Lancelot and I have been trying to confirm or otherwise the last week is what is the standard and accepted way to write scripts. Are quotes still going to be tollerated? Can quotes be used so as to avoid use of escapes? What of the agreement that was reached with WB development? Why doesn't the syntax page reflect this agreement and why was it changed to the opposite of the agreement? These are the issues we've been constantly trying to raise for discussion and constantly have been dodged again and again by either being ignored or replies which have raised side issues rather than dealing with the foundational issues raised.

If you look on projects like UXP or WinRoot:
http://winbuilder.ne...oad.php?view.24
http://winbuilder.ne...load.php?view.6

You'll see how scripting should be simple and painless to achieve good results.

Haven't checked WinRoot, but the UXP project will require updating to be able to work with WB080. This illustrates the point we've been trying to make: WB syntax has been in state of unpredictability the last couple of years and if a project wanted to use the latest WB version, often the project had to alter the syntax of scripts so that could happen. UXP will requiring updating in line with what LiveXP and nativeEx have been doing the last couple of years. If you're annoyed by that thought, then take heart that it is only in one hit taht you have to do this. LiveXP has been doing this all the time. We just want a settled syntax so that we don't have to keep updating for each new WB stable release.

Regards,
Galapo.

[Brito]

The issue is not project complexity but what is accepted standard WB syntax and what is not.

Sure. Let's talk on examples of things that should be changed.

(before we get another huge reply from Lancelot)