My thoughts on new features - KiXtart.org - official site

You are not logged in. [Log In] KiXtart.org website » Forums » KiXtart » Suggestions » My thoughts on new features

Page 1 of 1

1

Topic Options

#140064 - 2005-05-20 01:45 AM My thoughts on new features
It_took_my_meds It_took_my_meds Hey THIS is FUN Registered: 2003-05-07 Posts: 273 Loc: Sydney, Australia	Hi All, I would like to suggest that new additions to KiXtart focus on adding new features to the language rather than new commands/functions that can be achieved through other means such as COM or command line utilities (if that makes sense). As such I would like to place my vote (in order) for: 1. An option to use stdout or a version that uses stdout. I know this would kill a lot of the console functionality but with KiXforms I haven't used any of that for a very long time and I think it would be very worth it. In particular this would enable you to package a script as an executable that would run like a commandline utility. 2. COM Event handling 3. Loop exiting such as exit for. I know that you can use structures to get around this but it would be very nice. 4. Variable passing by Ref or Val 5. Regular Expression Support Cheers, Richard
Top

#140065 - 2005-05-20 02:01 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
Shawn Shawn Administrator Registered: 1999-08-13 Posts: 8611	Richard ... two things ... 1) Redirection to stdout is possible using a little trick we found. Set ASCII ON at the top of your script: Code: break on $= setoption("ascii","on") ?"hello world" exit 0 Then you can redirect or pipe the output for example using the above script: E:\>kix32 test \| findstr /i "hello" hello world E:\> 2) I agree 100% whole-heartedly with your first comment (about adding language enhancements versus new functions) ... I would love to see COM event handling, object oriented features, dotnet support and all those other sexy things you mentioned. Think Kixtart is due for some more jazzing-up ;0)
Top

#140066 - 2005-05-20 02:15 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
It_took_my_meds It_took_my_meds Hey THIS is FUN Registered: 2003-05-07 Posts: 273 Loc: Sydney, Australia	Hi Shawn, Thanks for the stdout tip, that is very useful! I just realised that regular expressions can be implemented using COM so in keeping with the idea of sticking solely to language enhancements maybe that should be withdrawn although it would still be nice. What exactly do you mean by .NET support? I have done some coding in VB. NET but am not sure what you mean. Do you mean accessing the .NET object model? Cheers, Richard
Top

#140067 - 2005-05-20 02:26 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
Les Les KiX Master Registered: 2001-06-11 Posts: 12734 Loc: fortfrances.on.ca	You need to take some of the COM stuff with a grain of salt cuz often they rely on WSH. Using the COM arguement, we would not need functions like InGroup() since technically they can be acheived via COM. Ja right! Think again! I also disagree on your CL utility arguement. Why kludge stuff through the CL when it can be done so much more elegantly inside KiX? _________________________ Give a man a fish and he will be back for more. Slap him with a fish and he will go away forever.
Top

#140068 - 2005-05-20 02:43 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
It_took_my_meds It_took_my_meds Hey THIS is FUN Registered: 2003-05-07 Posts: 273 Loc: Sydney, Australia	Les, I am by no means suggesting that functions like InGroup() are not useful, but if I had to choose between not having it and having COM event handling and vice-versa, to me its a no-brainer. In my way you could still determine group membership and handle COM events. Your way you can't. Just to be clear, I would never suggest that InGroup() should be dropped, it is incredibly useful. Rather, I am suggesting that Ruud's time would be better spent adding features that are otherwise impossible to access. Regards, Richard
Top

#140069 - 2005-05-20 03:20 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
Shawn Shawn Administrator Registered: 1999-08-13 Posts: 8611	Quote: Do you mean accessing the .NET object model? exactly, you said it perfect - "accessing" the model (as opposed to becoming part of it) ... not suggesting Ruud turn Kixtart into yet another .net language, but can you imagine being able to access the CLR from within Kixtart (just like one accesses COM objects). The other thing I would really love to see is language support for objects. Being able to create custom objects and access them via properties and method calls - very powerfull. Its those kinds of "enhancements" that (i) yearn for (think you do to).
Top

#140070 - 2005-05-20 03:26 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
It_took_my_meds It_took_my_meds Hey THIS is FUN Registered: 2003-05-07 Posts: 273 Loc: Sydney, Australia	Shawn, Accessing the .NET object model would be truly fantastic as would adding language support for objects. It looks like we're in complete agreement! Cheers, Richard
Top

#140071 - 2005-05-20 05:56 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
Shawn Shawn Administrator Registered: 1999-08-13 Posts: 8611	To be honest, I've "heard" Ruud use the "dotnet" word a couple of times in the past (interview with Ruud, etc) - as usual, he's prolly way ahead of us. Trust him to do whats right for Kixtart. Never heard him say the "object oriented" word though. Some recent features I am getting a real kick out of - tokenization and block-comments are language things recently added.
Top

#140072 - 2005-05-20 07:02 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
It_took_my_meds It_took_my_meds Hey THIS is FUN Registered: 2003-05-07 Posts: 273 Loc: Sydney, Australia	Yeah they're some great new features, especially the tokenising. I am eagerly awaiting the developers of ASE to support 4.50 with both syntax highlighting and packaging tokenised scripts. I assume that KiXtart is written in c and not c++, does anyone happen to know for sure? If it is and I understand correctly, I believe it would probably be quite a difficult task for Ruud to make KiXtart object oriented.
Top

#140073 - 2005-05-20 08:56 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
NTDOC NTDOC Administrator Registered: 2000-07-28 Posts: 11628 Loc: CA	Quote: About KiXtart KiXtart is a spare time project of Ruud van Velsen of Microsoft Netherlands. KiXtart was developed on Windows XP using Microsoft Visual Studio, Microsoft Visual C 6.0 SP5, Microsoft Assembler 6.1 and the Windows 32 Software Development Kit. The SPK format used by the PLAY command was originally designed by Gordon E. Peterson II. The SPK files were translated from BASIC and Assembler programs gathered from various public domain sources.
Top

#140074 - 2005-05-27 10:21 PM Re: My thoughts on new features
Lonkero Lonkero KiX Master Guru Registered: 2001-06-05 Posts: 22346 Loc: OK	hmm... visual c... thought it was c++ so little I knew. _________________________ ! download KiXnet
Top

#140075 - 2005-05-31 09:08 AM Re: My thoughts on new features
It_took_my_meds It_took_my_meds Hey THIS is FUN Registered: 2003-05-07 Posts: 273 Loc: Sydney, Australia	Going back to the suggestion of restoring the full functionality of stdout, the more I think of this the more I desire it! I know there have been discussions on the board in the past regarding using kixtart in IIS but it seems none of the solutions are (in my opinion) close to elegant or useful. I would love to be able to write good asp web pages without having to resort to vbscript. Perhaps Ruuds mention of dotnet ties in here? Maybe, but most likely wishful thinking on my part.
Top

#140076 - 2005-06-05 01:36 PM Re: My thoughts on new features
Ruud van Velsen Ruud van Velsen Developer Registered: 1999-05-06 Posts: 391 Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands	In short: providing access to the .Net framework is high up on the todo-list. But don't hold your breath waiting for it... ;-) Ruud
Top

#140077 - 2005-06-05 07:51 PM Re: My thoughts on new features
Sealeopard Sealeopard KiX Master Registered: 2001-04-25 Posts: 11165 Loc: Boston, MA, USA	What else is on the TO-DO list? Would you mind posting it so we can all start salivating? :-) Personally, I'd say a couple of AD-centric functions might do well related to identifcation of OUs, which we currently implement via UDFs. _________________________ There are two types of vessels, submarines and targets.
Top

Page 1 of 1

1

Previous Topic

Previous Topic View All Topics

View All Topics

Index Next Topic

Next Topic

Moderator: Lonkero, ShaneEP, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, Allen, Ruud van Velsen, Mart

Hop to:

Shout Box

Who's Online

0 registered and 657 anonymous users online.

Newest Members

M_Moore, BeeEm, min_seow, Audio, Hoschi
17883 Registered Users

Generated in 0.274 seconds in which 0.216 seconds were spent on a total of 12 queries. Zlib compression enabled.

click tracking