Talk:AutoHotkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions[edit]

Questions the article might answer... How can AutoHotkey be backwards compatible with AutoIt v2 without copyright infringement? Why v2 and not v3? Why compatibility with AutoIt at all? Why not a completely independent scripting language capable of achieving the same goals?


I don't it very deeply, neither AutoIt;
It would be nice to point main differences between both softwares.
It's true that AutoIt3 is capable of the same things has AHK with GUI, but is more easy to script complex tasks?

This sentence was not English! Anyway, it's good that this article exists in Wikipedia because Google is spammed when you search for automation software.

Well, for ease of use reasons, one can easily transform an AutoIt v2 script into an AutoHotkey one. Like AutoIt v2, AutoHotkey uses a syntax similar to the Microsoft ScriptIt syntax, but AutoHotkey is way more powerful than AutoIt v2 was. AutoHotkey uses this 'simple' syntax and is open source. AutoIt v3 uses Basic-ish syntax and is closed source. Try both, decide for yourself, both AutoHotkey and AutoIt v3 can deliver a lot. It would probably only depend on your specific need and your preferred taste or prior knowledge of syntax, which you'll use the most.

I would like to see how many times Auto Hot Keys was downloaded. I suspect a bunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellurl (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error in script?[edit]

I'm no AutoHotkey guru, but shouldn't the last line of the third example script that reads: 

^+r::Send revert edits by [[Special:Contributions/it%|it%]] to last version by %last%

read: 

^+r::Send revert edits by [[Special:Contributions/%edit%|%edit%]] to last version by %last%

instead? -- dockingmantalk 01:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • April 2003: Development begins on AutoHotkey, spun-off from AutoIt because of the desire for a keyboard/mouse hooking feature being turned down.
  • November 2003: First release of AutoHotkey.
  • February 2005: The last version of AuotIt source code that's publicly released before it goes closed-source.

Not to poke at old wounds... the forking of AutoIt seems to be shrouded in fog, and maybe it's better that way. Still, those two events seem pretty significant, and one wonders if there's any chance they could be related. Eventually one stumbles across the AutoIt Developer Chat forum and finds out they are.


--HaMc (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Walter Görlitz, I would like to know why this is not encyclopedic:

  • The administration of the official site has had many changes over its history.[1][2][3]. In response to this, the AutoHotkey Foundation LLC was founded (April 24th 2014 in Indiana, USA) to prevent monetization, ensure the continuing existence of the software AutoHotkey and naturally, continue the support for it. This foundation provides organizational, legal, and financial support for this software. It is a volunteer organization created "by the community, for the community".

Particularly, "The administration of the official site has had many changes over its history."; the mention of the change in administration was on the page for over a year. It is part of the reason why the official branch changed. Why is it no longer encyclopedic (a collection of information on a subject)? I looked at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content and there does not seem to be any direct breach.

If not, could you propose a different change? Otherwise, the entire History section might as well be removed too... It is then incomplete and irrelevant, it's history without key facts, details ... I don't understand. Please elaborate. Why is simply always removing information "the" choice? This page is very bare... Why all the negative commits[4], a submission for deletion? Why would this subject be irrelevant or too insignificant if it has been used by companies such Dreamworks, IBM and Intel. I am not interested in any "edit war", I just was want to understand.
Kind regards, Joedf (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's not encyclopedic is that it's sourced only by WP:PRIMARY sources. If you had WP:SECONDARY sources that would be different. In short: WP:NOTFANSITE. I won't be discussing other articles. And there's no need to link to me or ping me. This article is on my watchlist because of previous edit wars that have happened here due to the two sides who want to push their preferred WP:POV here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, understood. Thanks, much appreciated! It will be difficult to find other sources since every other source out there simply refers back to the official website... e.g. Link1 Link2 This is a bit of a catch-22 situation... Even the python page uses the official website for its history for individual facts: Python History Do you have any suggestions? Joedf (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Why isn't the passage in question permitted under this standard? Peter Brown (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, PRIMARY does is for making straightforward, descriptive statements, but this is WP:TRIVIA about the company, not a a series of straightforward, descriptive statements. If the information were of interest to anyone else in he tech world, they would have written about it, wouldn't they? Yet no cares. It's essentially a WP:CHANGELOG of what's happened at the company (the reference name admits as much), and we should not publicize that. The section amounts to WP:FANCRUFT and is not needed. Fans can read the changelog at the site if they're interested. There were also incorrect uses of inline external links, incorrect date formatting and a violation of WP:NOTUSA. In short, no need to discuss the struggles over the website unless a third-party discusses it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taking up Walter Görlitz's statements in order:
The lead sentence of WP:TRIVIA well summarizes the policy: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." The paragraph in question is not a list; it consists of four closely interrelated sentences.
  • The paragraph is not a series of straightforward, descriptive statements.
Please elaborate. Which if the four sentences is not both straightforward and descriptive?
  • If the information were of interest to anyone else in the tech world, they would have written about it, wouldn't they? Yet no one cares.
Though competent at Wikitext and AutoHotkey, I'm not now "in the tech world", having retired from computer programming in 2002, prior to the first Autohotkey beta. I'm more of an "average reader", but I believe that Wikipedia is largely aimed at such readers. According to Joedf, "every other source out there simply refers back to the official website," so apparently he/she has found a significant number. Speaking as a non-historian, I find it quite significant that non-monetization should be one of a foundation's founding principles. I have to doubt that I'm alone.
WP:CHANGELOG redirects to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not § Directory. Unfortunately, the article does not contain a section or subsection called "Directory". Neither I nor Joedf finds "any direct breach".
Quote from the {{Deletion essay}} box: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines … Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
  • Fans can read the changelog at the site if they're interested.
Autohotkey does provide a "ChangeLog", but the entries relate only to technical matters, not to organizational ones.
  • There were also incorrect uses of [various items].
Fine, let's fix them! First, though, the paragraph has to be restored.
Peter Brown (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to fix. It's not worthy of inclusion. Sorry you don't get that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see Peter M. Brown added it back and modified it slightly but it's still about a website, not the product itself. I removed it yet again and have added a third-party opinion to be provided. In past 3Os, an editor frequently leaves their opinion and no further discussion is made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! The statement at 3O is commendably neutral, and you pointed to my latest version which, I think, meets your point about clear technical violations.
I do note that, in your latest response, you add an objection not previously made. You keep doing that. I don't, however, see why a discussion of a software product must exclude information about a website dedicated to its maintenance and improvement.
Peter Brown (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I keep adding objections because the content is so objectionable on so many fronts I can simply pick more at random to add to the flaming pile of feces that you want to add. Sometimes it just better to accept the opinion of a neutral pagewatcher who edits hundreds of articles a day than to cajole and argue with them, but continuing is your call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why the addition or removal of the material seems to be springing such a debate with vigour from whatever front. I am not sure, so to speak, that the somewhat coarse language is necessary here ... I don't think this is appropriate or objective at all ... Whatever the final outcome, please keep it respectful. Thanks. Joedf (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not sure why the addition is problematic, you haven't been paying attention. I am being respectful of the editors, but the content is owed no respect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh not at all, I have read through all of it. I personally just don't think this is worth the time to look into every detail. If it's disapproved, it's disapproved. I just don't think saying "flaming pile of feces" was objectively necessary. Joedf (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! 3O here. Just so I'm clear, the disagreement is about whether to include the information from the bulleted section at the top starting with "The administration of the official site...," correct? creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Joedf (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. My 3O thoughts (I had a more detailed version of this written up, and of course I managed to hit cancel, so let's try again...):
  • The foundation does not appear to qualify for independent notability per WP:NORG - I haven't seen any discussion of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. If someone does have a source like that, then the following thoughts are moot - just source it to the reliable source.
  • If it's not independently notable, let's examine it through the lens of WP:FAILORG, as if it had been considered for its own article and found insufficiently notable:
    • Criterion 1 is due weight; I think that four sentences in an article about a tool supported by the foundation is reasonable.
    • Criterion 2 is promotional language; the originally proposed text doesn't seem too promotional to me, though I'm very leery of the "by the community, for the community" quote. It could be revised to meet this standard.
    • Criterion 3 is verifiability through independent sources. This is the sticking point. While primary sources can be used to support factual statements in articles, I would expect them to be used to supplement secondary sources. The lack of these independent sources means that I'm calling it a fail on this criterion.
Because of that, I'm inclined to call the proposed addition insufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. Perhaps a one-sentence statement to the effect of "Since 2014, AutoHotKey has been supported by the AutoHotKeyFoundation, LLC" would work - it's a statement of fact that I'd feel comfortable sourcing to a primary source since it's about the product, but it doesn't go into detail about a non-notable topic. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "by the community, for the community" quote being somewhat promotional language, and thus unnecessary. Sure, whatever is best. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Joedf (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Criterion 3 of WP:FAILORG is in conflict with the sentence from WP:PRIMARY that I quoted. Should one or the other of these policies be revised? Or am I not understanding them correctly? Peter Brown (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A question for those talk pages, not here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point. The conflict is relevant here, though. You agreed that WP:PRIMARY explicitly permits statements that lack independent sources and therfore went on to offer other objections. As things stand, WP:PRIMARY and Criterion 3 cancel each other out, so the basis for deciding should be limited to Criteria 1 and 2. Peter Brown (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the 3O above? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creffpublic indicated that it would be reasonable to add a one-sentence summary of the non-notable organization and, using common sense, could be sourced with a primary source.
But let me be clear, there is no conflict at the guideline. It clearly reads:
Content about the organization can be added into relevant articles if it:

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 2003to2004changelog was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ourhistory was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "The future of AutoHotkey.com". Chris. 2012-01-26. Retrieved 2012-02-01.
  4. ^ "WG edit-history".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

general cleanup and History edits[edit]

This article was in desperate need of some cleaning up which I have done to some extent; ultimately it should be looking at an entire rewrite but it's decent enough for now. I also removed some links and converted them to references and added Help manual references for better explanation on some things within the article; if these are not correct in implementation, please let me know. I also cleaned up the examples a little and added a couple more just to give an idea of the simplicity of the language, which is a distinguishing feature of the program.

The information about who uses AutoHotkey in what field is not particularly pertinent in terms of an encyclopedia and should probably be removed even if it can be sourced. The stuff about forking from AutoIt in the History section is not necessary for this article and I have removed it. Forking, in this instance, implies something other than a conceptual split of the author of this program from AutoIt in terms of programmatic aims (as previous discussion has made clear). There are no known reliable third-party sources on this issue and we're not likely to ever see any, so as far as I'm concerned, it stays out.

In its place in the History section I have added information about two other programmers within the AutoHotkey community who have created their own versions of the program, as these would appear to be more relevant to the article and clearly verifiable.

user experience[edit]

Avoid it to preserve your sanity. Inconsistent language/library. For example: Click %x%,%y% while MouseClick Left,x,y . Another is string vs. expression assignment and variable expansion etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.163.104 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SouthStExit (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AutoHotkey community fork[edit]

The recent attempts to change AutoHotkey's web address in the info box from

to

appear to be down to an ongoing community fork rather than spoofing, see:

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Further information about the AutoHotkey community that may shed more light on the subject:[edit]

http://www.autohotkey.com/ was the original AutoHotkey website that changed hands in 2010 from the original creator of AutoHotkey to a volunteer member of the community. In the past one to two years, this member (who has full ownership of the site) has began to not maintain the site, has been difficult to contact, no longer frequents the site and no longer maintains an interest in AutoHotkey, and whose words and actions implied that he may at any time shut down the site, but is not willing to pass off ownership to anybody else.

In light of these happenings and unwilling to continue battling with the domain owner of autohotkey.com, another site was setup temporarily by the community at http://www.auto-hotkey.com/, then permanently at http://www.ahkscript.org. The majority of the community moved there, including the official developer and maintainer of AutoHotkey (Steve Gray, also known as Lexikos). Furthermore, the official download of AutoHotkey now resides at http://ahkscript.org/download/. The download links on both ahkscript.org and autohotkey.com point to this address.

Currently, both sites continue to co-exist, with the vast majority of activity occurring at ahkscript.org. The official developer has moved all download links to ahkscript.org, has updated all links in the offline documentation to ahkscript.org, and has stated that he will follow the wishes of the community and that he wants "nothing to do with him [the owner/super-admin of autohotkey.com]" http://ahkscript.org/boards/viewtopic.php?f=0&t=127&p=1511&hilit=+nothing#p1511.

This was my reasoning for changing the current official website to ahkscript.org, but unfortunately my edit was undone.

—Books95 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. If the fork becomes as notable as the original we should definitely add that information here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have an anonymous editor from Tbilisi, Georgia adding the link three times.
As of today, the front page reads "Welcome to AHKScript.org, a new community founded by a number of enthusiasts to promote the use of AutoHotkey." Now the page reads like it's a fan site. See WP:ELNO. It's obviously not an official website of the original product, but it's associated with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] Where is the evidence that ahkscript.org is legit? the new source seems to be here https://github.com/Lexikos/AutoHotkey_L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.165.117 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AutoHotkey_L is a fork of the original product. It's not the original product. Are you familiar with Ubuntu Linux? How many forks does it have? Is each fork notable? Does each fork's project page have its own article? The only reason a fork of the original has its own article is because the fork is itself notable. This product is the same. It is notable, but any new fork would have to have sufficient notability of its own to merit an article. Also, a fork cannot simply hijack this article and claim to be the new AutoHotkey or the heir to the name without proof, particularly when the reference that is used to supports its existence indicates it's fork of the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I'm going to agree with Walter. My only comment would be that what determines the "official site" for a project like this would have to come down to Intellectual Property rights in the software. I believe that one of the original authors/maintainers of the project did move to the new site, and also that the old site owner has recognized the current active developer. In other words, I don't think that the original site ownership in and of itself determines who is official and who is not (I'm not sure what would, other than who has legal ownership of the name AutoHotKey (in whatever regulatory regime applies)). --Cowb0y (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After recently reviewing the AHK sites and community forums, I concluded that the project and community as a whole is still too much in disarray to merit a change of "official site". The development clearly is centered around the new site, but the original site has the weight of history (and search engine visibility), plus their forums are still quite active. Additionally, there has been talk on the new site forums about rapproachment between the owner of the original site and the maintainers of the new one. So, for now, I don't feel that the official site link should be changed. It might be helpful for more information about the split to be added to the article itself, so that a new reader would have some clarity about the state of the project, but I'm not sure how to do that in the context of Wikipedia policies (notability, reliable citations, etc.), as it is mostly forum chatter we're talking about. --Cowb0y (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But yet, it cannot be denied that the new site is not as important, if not more, than the old site in the context of an encyclopedic article about AutoHotkey. ahkscript.org is an alternative site to autohotkey.com and is anything but a "fan" site. Currently, plans are in motion to transfer ownership of autohotkey.com to the newly created AutoHotkey Foundation LLC and that at some point in time the two websites will be officially consolidated under the domain autohotkey.com, but until that changeover happens (which will likely take quite a while) it is important that the Wikipedia page remain accurate. It's also worth mentioning that nobody owns the name AutoHotkey. Hence, ahkscript.org should be listed on the Wikipedia page as an alternative site.
Also, for those of you calling ahkscript.org a "fork" of autohotkey.com, the members of the community are one and the same on each site (with exceptions obviously, such as people who have been long absent) and many are active on each site, so even though it might technically be a "fork", I wouldn't call it that. Instead, ahkscript.org was simply a way to ensure that AutoHotkey doesn't simply disappear from the internet one day and to provide a reliable place where the community could be active without censorship. And although the current build of AutoHotkey was once a fork of the original creator's version of AutoHotkey, the two branches have since been consolidated, the "fork" declared the official version, and development on the original version has ceased completely (even for bug fixes) (this happened four of five years ago). --Books95 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Welcome to AHKScript.org, a new community founded by a number of enthusiasts to promote the use of AutoHotkey." A community? A fan site? A forum? Read WP:ELNO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that, and that's exactly my point: ahkscript.org is not a fan site. It is one of two official sites. Here's the short story of why ahkscript.org was created, in the words of the superadmin of the site, tank aka Charlie Simmons:
"The nickel version is many of us were unhappy with forum software changes forum and site administration policies and when these oppinions were voiced entire threads were deleted as well as moderators getting stripped of priviledges. we came here, contacted chris [the original creator of AHK who is no longer active in the project] proposed the idea of an LLC to own Autohotkey.com who agreed with the idea so long as he wouldnt be required to do anything but had some sort of emergency power if ti goes awry again. we have been applying various means of descreet preasute on Poly [the site admin of autohotkey.com] for some time now. he has began discussing a hand over and promised one. but the battle is on going.
"First and formost this must not turn into a public bashing. we should not spam threads in either site promoting one or the other. a public battle only hurts everyone. In the end no descision has been made final about the end state of autohotkey.com should Poly comply. it is desired to convert the current forum to PHPBB3 and lock it as a permanent archive and point autohotkey.com to this forum. but that is a premature discussion. First we have to get the domain and content ownership transfered to the AutoHotkey Foundation LLC. and then we can publicly discuss a final state. Untill such an ownersip transfer occurs things are they are is really the the only state of things that there are. we will remain 2 domains servicing the same users."
If by your definition ahkscript.org is a "fan" site, then so is autohotkey.com since the two sites are essentially one and the same apart from who is in control, and hence neither site should be listed. Both provide a download page, a forum, and online documentation. But since autohotkey.com is not a fan site, neither is ahkscript.org.
--Books95 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"community founded by a number of enthusiasts" argues against that it's an official site for anything other than fans of the product. Official websites are not created by "a number of enthusiasts". Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I hate Wikipedia sometimes. People like you who essentially impede the evolution of any page for incorrect reasons, despite evidence enough that those reasons are false. That description was chosen in part not to create a battle with the old site, and in no way means that it is a "fan" site. And both sites were created "by a number of enthusiasts". AHK is not a company like Mozilla, and both sites exist exclusively for "enthusiasts". But I can see that I'm discoursing with a brick wall, so I'm not going to even bother trying anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Books95 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you hate Wikipedia, but I'm not impeding the evolution of this or any page. The product page is clear and the site you want to link to is not the official page. It's fork or a fan page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Domain Name: AUTOHOTKEY.COM
  Creation Date: 29-dec-2003
  Updated Date: 18-oct-2013
  Expiration Date: 29-dec-2015
  Registrant Name: THE SECRETARY
  Registrant Organization: DEQUEUE LTD, C/O TAXASSIST ACCOUNTANTS
  Registrant Street: CHANCERY STATION HOUSE
  Registrant Street: 31-33 HIGH HOLBORN
  Registrant City: LONDON
  Registrant State/Province: ENGLAND
  Registrant Postal Code: WC1V 6AX
  Registrant Country: GB

  Domain Name: AUTO-HOTKEY.COM
  Creation Date: 28-sep-2013
  Updated Date: 28-sep-2013
  Expiration Date: 28-sep-2014
  Registrant Name: charles simmons
  Registrant Organization: Battleboard games
  Registrant Street: 16105 beechwood
  Registrant City: charlestown
  Registrant State/Province: Indiana
  Registrant Postal Code: 47111
  Registrant Country: United States

  Domain Name:AHKSCRIPT.ORG
  Creation Date: 2013-10-17T00:56:55Z
  Updated Date: 2013-12-16T03:46:20Z
  Registry Expiry Date: 2018-10-17T00:56:55Z
  Registrant Name:Registration Private
  Registrant Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
  Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
  Registrant City:Scottsdale
  Registrant State/Province:Arizona
  Registrant Postal Code:85260
  Registrant Country:US

unfortunately it is not a virtuous system to keep the identity of the owner of a domain hidden, such as is done by the companies that sell illegal drugs, spammers etc. .. --Efa (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As now the last official version on http://www.autohotkey.com/ is 1.0.48.05 so the last version showed in the article square box should be changed, and last modification date should back to 5 year ago, see: https://github.com/AutoHotkey/AutoHotkey

The last version that is downloadable by http://ahkscript.org is 1.1.13.01 and comprise many new functions and is continually updated. Probably this become the continuation. Maybe an explanation note should be added to the article to avoid confusion.--Efa (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it's not clear that the version at ahkscript.org isn't a fork of the product and will have different versioning and ownership, you're confused. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes confused by the Wiki article that still report http://www.autohotkey.com/ as official site just below 1.1.13.01 / 4 May 2014; 36 days ago as last Stable release that come from the fork. Did you understood what I wrote: "the last version showed in the article square box should be changed, and last modification date should back to 5 year ago" --Efa (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok I had to reword the sentence:

'autohotkey.com' as official site, just below '1.1.13.01 / 4 May 2014; 36 days ago' as 'last Stable release' that come only from the other domain.
As now the article mix up the two.
If ahkscript.org will not be a fork, we should explain that when the original author will give the autohotkey.com and https://github.com/AutoHotkey/AutoHotkey ownership, so there will be no fork, the develop and versioning will switch to Autohotkey_L 1.1 on the same site. This should be the best solution. If the fork happen, nothing bad, in my opinion also in this case we should explain with a little note that a fork happened and that the other repository and web site release often and with a new versioning.--Efa (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done:
In 2010, AutoHotKey v1.1 (originally called AutoHotkey_L) became the platform for ongoing development of AutoHotkey.[13][14][15]
Another port of the program is AutoHotkey.dll.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note 14 is not anymore a valid citation as now the last version downloadable from http://www.autohotkey.com/download/ is 1.0.48.05. I would keep the note at bottom of the article, but would remove the note and end of your sentence--Efa (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

after read everything:

http://www.autohotkey.com/board/topic/92482-what-is-happening-with-this-site/
http://ahkscript.org/boards/viewtopic.php?p=15291#p15291
the impression is that the owner 'POLYETHENE@AUTOHOTKEY.NET' of domain 'autohotkey.com' is not mantaining the web site, the community moved all to ahkscript.org, so probably also the official domain just today should be 'ahkscript.org'--Efa (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the fork is now more popular than the original version. Isn't that sort of like the ongoing saga of OpenOffice and a dozen other open source products? Each fork must have its own article. Each fork must show its own notability. No riding on the coattails of another version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please remove note 14 reference at the end of your sentence--Efa (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

—

I don't understand how something can not be official when the original creator himself (Chris Mallett) now claims "AHK_L" as the official branch. Also, by putting the "preview release" link we are all technically agreeing that v2 is an "official" in-dev version of autohotkey. That said, v2 is by the creator of "AHK_L" (Lexikos). AHK v2 is therefore directly related to AHK_L and IS currently being considered to be official by EVERYONE here. Now, it seems to me that by denying AHK v1.1 to be "official", you are being delusional. No? Furthermore, ahkscript.org is "considered" to be official by the original creator and by the AHK_L creator. By refusing this, it seems like "putting words in the creators' mouths." If anyone feels that AHK v2 is not "official" then should not it be removed also? Anyhow, just as the case of AHK v2, whether ahkscript.org is "official" or not, it should still be (mentioned at minimum) on this wiki page.

Ps. reference #14 is not a "valid mention".

Joedf (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't understand. Let me explain it to you by asking a question: is AHK_L a continuation of AutoHotkey or is one a fork of the other? If it's the former, a continuation, it's like a lot of programs that change ownership and I'm full of crap and should shut up. If it's the former, the first product ceased to exist when the second started and all that happened was that there was change of ownership. If it's the former, as is the case with a lot of open source software, one group stopped modifying the source code and another group took over the work on the product and continued using the same name. If it's the former, the original creator holds no rights to the software or its name and the new product took over the name and eventually changed it.
However, the former is not what the sources, or the original creator, say has happened and so it's the latter case. The sources say that AHK_L is a branch, or more correctly, a fork of the original product.
That puts it into the same class as Linux and all of its distributions and variants. It's in the same class as StarOffice, OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice. In other words, each product needs to have its own article. The original meets notability guidelines while the fork (or branch as Mallett calls it) needs to create a new article, not try to co-opt this article. We place a hatnote at the top of both and point to the other. We can even mention them in the article and it can link back to the other.
What you're suggesting is conflating the two subjects. Create a new article for AHK_L provided that it meets WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Ok, then I shall start a new page for AHK_L. One last thing... Shouldn't the v2 link be removed? Anyway, is it better to have a section or a new page? I don't want to confuse the readers... What do you think? Joedf (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it meets notability.
Feel free to remove any material that you think should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woah... I think I got confused here. The download link on this article is http://ahkscript/download ... And the stable release is v1.1.15.00 which is AHK_L... and the Preview release is also technically AHK_L... They all link to ahkscript.org one way or another... If we are going to keep to this "idea", then it means that the preview release shouldn't be there, nor should stable release be v1.1.15.00... it should be v1.0.45.08 ... Somehow, the article is saying that ahkscript.org and AHK_L is "official"... even if we are saying it isn't... So, which way are we going here? ... Joedf (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of today July 2016, both web site let download same binary "AutoHotkey112400_Install.exe". http://ahkscript.org/ download link point to domain https://www.autohotkey.com/download/ Efa (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. I am an administrator on both autohotkey.com and ahkscript.org. Everything has been migrated back to autohotkey.com (and should be used over ahkscript.org). That said, most ahkscript.org links now redirect to autohotkey.com anyhow. Right now, ahkscript.org is more used for the AHK foundation page. Joedf (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to both autohotkey.com and ahkscript.org? Neither one is working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.232.38.47 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them work, I just tried. --Jhertel (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Server maintenance and changes, both are hosted on the same server. Joedf (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again[edit]

Just want to understand why you reverted the url on the AutoHotkey page. As far as I know, http://ahkscript.org/ has become a link to AutoHotkey.com. — Ineuw talk 06:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ineuw: Have you read this discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I read it now. It's interesting, thanks for the enlightenment. :-) — Ineuw talk 19:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Url / release info in Infobox[edit]

Just a quick note to prevent an edit-war:

I do not care about the dispute that seems to be going on in their community. So resolve this however you want, but please keep this page consistent. I expect to find the release specified in the infobox on the website specified in the infobox.

So if you change the url back to autohotkey.com, please also revert the “latest release” info to the appropriate release and fix this sentence:

> In 2010, AutoHotKey v1.1 (originally called AutoHotkey_L) became the platform for ongoing development of AutoHotkey.[13]

--Chronial (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I care about the dispute so just don't change either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AutoHotkey for Wikipedians[edit]

I've started Wikipedia:AutoHotkey, for tips about the use of AutoHotkey by Wikipedia editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AutoHotkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick code testing?[edit]

The final bullet under Features is "Quick code testing before implementing in another (more time consuming) programming language." I retired from computer programming 16 years ago and many things have changed, but I can't see the point in coding a routine twice, once in AutoHotkey and then again in C++ or Pascal. The final implementation would have to be tested anyhow; why go through the process more than once? Why would a programmer's supervisor permit such a waste of time? And why introduce the possibility of mistranslating from one language to another? Peter Brown (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand your point, I am thinking that maybe what was meant is prototyping. You can relatively quickly mock up a prototype that shows how a program would function and actually demonstrate it and test it with users. It won't be fast and perhaps it won't be accurate either, but it can show if the whole idea makes enough sense to program it in another language where making a prototype would take maybe 10 or 30 times as long but where the language has other wanted properties like stability, speed, precision, platform-independence, and many others. I'm just guessing, because the bullet text is not clear at all, but that's the explanation my brain gave me. If that was the meaning, the bullet should say "Prototyping before implementing in another, more time consuming programming language." Why use AutoHotkey for prototyping, you might ask? Well, maybe if the specific program you want to prototype is close to the core of what AutoHotkey does well, such as handling hotkeys, hotstrings, contexts, windows, graphical user interface interaction, etc. --Jhertel (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed example[edit]

I removed the following example that didn't work (obviously, as it clears the clipboard as the first thing) and also is very fragile and poorly explained. I am moving it here to the talk pages in case someone wants to correct it, test it, and make it more robust. Also, it probably belongs on Wikipedia:AutoHotkey and not in the general article about AutoHotkey. --Jhertel (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this example, once the contents of a Wikipedia user name or IP address link have been copied from anywhere on Wikipedia's site to the clipboard (using Firefox), the following script allows a user to perform the function CopyUser on the clipboard's contents and save it to a variable designated by either the hotkey Ctrl+⇧ Shift+W or the hotkey Ctrl+⇧ Shift+E. The hotkey Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R utilizes the resultant variables to produce a revert edits summary. 

^+w::last := CopyUser() ; Ctrl+Shift+W
^+e::edit := CopyUser() ; Ctrl+Shift+E

CopyUser() {
   Clipboard =
   StringReplace, Clipboard, Clipboard, http://en.wikipedia.org/
   StringReplace, Clipboard, Clipboard, wiki/
   StringReplace, Clipboard, Clipboard, w/index.php?title=
   StringReplace, Clipboard, Clipboard, Special:Contributions&target=
   StringReplace, Clipboard, Clipboard, User:
   StringReplace, Clipboard, Clipboard, &action=edit
   StringReplace, Clipboard, Clipboard, _, %A_Space%, All
   Return, Clipboard
}

; Ctrl+Shift+R
^+r::Send revert edits by [[Special:Contributions/%edit%|%edit%]] to last version by %last%

A better example of a function is needed[edit]

With reference to the last of the "Examples": general readers are unlikely to know what URI-encoding is. Since the relevant article is linked, this would not be a fault if understanding this concept would deepen ones' understanding of AutoHotkey, the matter under consideration; it is, however, pretty irrelevant.

Alternatively, we could just drop the example. The article does not need to — indeed, cannot — illustrate all of Autohotkey's features, and functions are one that could be omitted. Peter Brown (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the point being made, but I believe that omitting the example is not the better option. It may seem like the easier lazy solution, but we can’t expect the reader to understand everything offhand. That’s why we have links to other pages, dictionaries, simple English wiki, “the handbook of chemistry and physics” jk and whatnot. Perhaps, changing the example to something more known would be better, but I would rather leave this example in the meantime at least until a better one is chosen. - Joedf (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not the best example and a much simpler one could be used. I just added another example (QuoteSelection), mostly to have more to choose from for discussing and comparing, but "my" example isn't impressive either. I just tried to keep it understandable for most people not acquainted with AutoHotkey. Better examples of the power of AutoHotkey (short and simple script with a powerful and useful effect) would definitely be welcome. --Jhertel (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your example does avoid, quite adequately, the problem of the obscure (to many folks) reference to URI‑encoding. So why not delete the pre-existing Ctrl+X example? You have superseded it. Readers should not need to try to cope with the older example before encountering yours. Peter Brown (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A separate problem is that it's starting to violate WP:NOTMANUAL. If the examples are not pared back, I'll do it indiscriminately. Also, avoid references to the "other" product's site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that threat I chose to simply remove what I found to be less useful examples. Walter, I don't understand what you mean by "avoid references to the 'other' product’s site" when it comes to the examples. Could you elaborate? --Jhertel (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed the changes but the issue I was referencing was http://www.autohotkey.com/ vs the community fork version at http://www.auto-hotkey.com/. Sorry that it was vague. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient citations?[edit]

I noticed that most of this article's references are to AutoHotkey's own website or their forum. Relatively few of them are to independent sources. Unless the consensus is otherwise, I will flag the article with {{third-party}}. Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is accurate, but I am also unsure where such reference could be found :(
Joedf (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AutoHotkey&oldid=1199208973"