3 ms·
I really don't see how AHK's script language is somehow not intuitive or simple enough. The syntax is pretty easy to grasp. You have all the tools "natively" t
by spookie 4y ago
I really don't see how AHK's script language is somehow not intuitive or simple enough. The syntax is pretty easy to grasp.
You have all the tools "natively" to even pick positions on windows, its pretty extensive too.
- mmmpetrichor 4y agoI write AHK scripts like once or twice and then forget about it. I can't remember the sytax so I'm constantly googling. I'd rather have it in a language I already know well. Also as a long time programmer who knows a lot of languages, the AHK syntax (at least in V1) was anything but intuitive. It had very weird conventions.
- spookie 4y agoFair enough
- Fnoord 4y agoI find the syntax easy and the documentation (of v1, not enough experience with v2) is easily accessible and of high quality. V2 solves some inconsistencies in the syntax and language but at the cost of being compatible with v1. I've been able to port my v1 scripts to v2, and I'm a lousy programmer.
- BrandoElFollito 4y agoThe syntax is a nightmare. I honestly never understood why they made it so complicated. Should I use a brace? On the same line or on a new one? How to pass parameters, with or without paranthesis? Should I use ::? There are many such issues. I love AHK but every time I wrote a script or is trial and error to discover the proper syntax.