#142847 - 2005-07-04 09:44 AM
Re: KIX32, WKIX32, and now CKIX32?
|
Richard H.
Administrator
Registered: 2000-01-24
Posts: 4946
Loc: Leatherhead, Surrey, UK
|
Quote:
The CALL command would by nature of not having the tokenizer, have to only support pretokenized scripts.
An additional caveat is that none of the scripts can contain Execute(), which might cripple the functionality enough that the space saved by dropping the parser is not worth the bother.
Quote:
alright, now we are talking!
KiXcompiler would be soo hot.
it could take advantage of the MIDL already out there, couldn't it?
that is, Ruud would "only" need to add kixtart language specifications.
GCC could also support kix, thus even unix, linux and OS X binaries could be done.
CKiX or even KiXc - KiXtart Compiler
Hah, interesting idea 
A Windows KiXtart compiler would be feasible I guess, though you'd need to develop a library of helper functions which would be included at link time to support KiXtart built-in functionality.
However I'm not convinced that KiXtart for *nix or OS X is particularly useful. These operating systems already have a number of tools which are mature and far more appropriate to their environment. To port KiXtart you'd necessarily have to remove inappropriate functionalilty and emulate a lot of the stuff which is provided to KiXtart via Windows API.
I imagine most people use KiXtart not because it is the best all-purpose scripting language (it isn't!) but because it is probably the best light-weight scripting languages for Windows administration and logon processing (a definate yes!) and is getting better with each release. It's also very easy to learn and kind of cute.
If you manage multiple environments and you want a common code base or set of skills you'd be better off using Rexx, Java, PERL, PHP, KSH/BASH or one of the cross-platform BASICs, or maybe go straight to C / C++ or whatever the current flavour is.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#142849 - 2005-07-29 11:07 AM
Re: KIX32, WKIX32, and now TKIX32?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
I'm not concerned with saving a few bytes but an .exe packager would be fabulous...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#142850 - 2005-08-13 05:28 PM
Re: KIX32, WKIX32, and now CKIX32?
|
Jack Lothian
MM club member
Registered: 1999-10-22
Posts: 1169
Loc: Ottawa,Ontario, Canada
|
Hi Guys,
I thought Richard catches the essence of my thoughts on KiXtart. KiXtart attracts users because it is free, less threatening then the others options, the learning curve for newbees is short & not very steep, yet it has an incredible depth that allows programmers to constantly grow in their capabilities. KiXtart is not a black box & that is one of its chief attractions. Any untrained fool (we are all fools when we start out) can start KiXtarting & do some amazing things during their first week on the job.
As on aside, in my workplace we almost exclusively use Microsoft software (with the principle exception of SAS) & our IT people would never think of using KiXtart. We use Microsoft’s enterprise scripting tools. Of course, the prerequisite for using this solution is big bucks plus an IT staff highly trained in the use of Microsoft’s enterprise tools. I can attest that this solution generates a highly efficient system. The basic system maintenance tools & the OS are totally inaccessible to the 6000 plus users. In some ways, the enterprise solution is like using the subway (it is highly efficient yet beyond the commuters capability to affect) while KiXtart is like commuting with one's own car (it is less efficient, more prone to problems & more costly but it is highly adaptable to ones needs).
Trying to convert cars into subways is rarely a good idea.
I was just passing through & I couldn’t resist putting in my 2¢.
Edited by Shawn (2005-08-13 06:21 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Lonkero, ShaneEP, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, Allen, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 657 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
