Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Ideas... (Read 6784 times) previous topic - next topic

Ideas...

I've read Robert Allgeyer's comment on NWC to be identical to Visual Basic someway and it has encouraged me to write some thoughts which have been floating in my mind for several months.

I completely agree that NWC has a programming language-like intuitive way of working. We can see this concretely in the new "find" function; every item has a cleverly text interpretation.

I think NWC can have its own scripting language to improve/automate/combine present functions or -maybe- support external ones with macros.

Any ideas?

Re: Ideas...

Reply #1 –
Interesting idea, Ertugrul. But keep in mind that I am not a programmer. My opinion does not count for much!

As for scripting languages, it is my understanding that they end up looking like this:

if (theObject[object] != Object()) {
isNormal = -1 * indexOf(abnormal);
fatChance = math.random(indexOf(theObject[object]));
}
else logicBomb(void(0));
}

Remember, most of us use NWC because it is easy.

Re: Ideas...

Reply #3 –
Well, It's a loooooooong time I think of this, and the workaround I had find was to use the Macro recorder, which Andrew and others leaded to various interesting functionnalities.
And at that point, I would want to give some precision.
  • macro means a repetition of a pre-recorded action
  • script usually (ie in the common sense) means a capacity on making choices upon specific conditions (including loops, for example). It should be named program IMHO.
AppleScript or HyperCard are scripts, and the same goes for the µ$ Word/XL/Access "macro" language. The recorder.exe of Win3.x is really a macro recorder/player.
So:
  • A real macro (not script) functionality would already be really useful.
    However, the current macro recorder gives the same ability, though not on NT, which let me orphan of it :(..
  • Adding some functions such as find or replace would be an enhancement, but would start to confuse some users.
    But some other users can be of some help there.
  • Allowing structured language of any level would probably be more confusing, though it would be of great help for some of us, for sure (in particular I think of a "fugue maker").
    Advanced programming may be a help, and I'd suggest a dedicated forum for discussing the "macro", then.
Maybe instead of this, the ability to allow some external plug-ins would be better or simpler (I'd see those plug-ins as freeware only, or GPL software). But it may lead to other problems (not reliable software due to plug-in instability, extra payments on plug-ins if someone decides so, and so on)

P.S. Robert, there is an extra '}' in your script ;^)
P.P.S. I'd prefer lisp scripting, just for fun (or Forth maybe)
P.P.P.S More seriously: a basic macro scripting with actions such as <up>,<shift>, ... would be *really* great.
Such as we can find in the MacroEditor (cf Scriptorium).

Just my 2 euro-cents (as long as I can use euros) contribution...

!bold(MAD)

Re: Ideas...

Reply #4 –
Yeah, yeah!  Gimmee macros!

On a more sober note, adding a replace function to the wonderful new find function would increase its usefulness ten-fold.

You see - that's what comes of giving people new features!  It gives them ideas about more new features!

Robin

Re: Ideas...

Reply #5 –
I wish to quibble a bit on marsu's definitions.  In a number of system with which I have worked a "macro" was an expression in the language which invoked a program of some sort whose value would replace the instance of the "macro" and be parsed or interpreted (depending on the language) as if it had been part of the original file.  In at least four of these systems that I still remember the "macro" programs were more or less full fledged programming languages.  The ones I can still cite were:

IBM 1410/7010 Assembler
IBM S/370 Assembler
IBM Script (a text formating language)
IBM Lisp/370 & Common Lisp

(By the way, I would LOVE to have Lisp as a macro/scripting language!)

The problem is, in the Windows world nether macros nor scripts are what used to be called macros, as both of them are themselves active, rather than producing new "code".  The nearest things to what I would call a macro is the WordPerfect macro language and JavaScript (I don't know Word so I can't speak about it), both of which produce text which replaces the macro instance.

I don't know what I WOULD call the results of the "macro recorder", but "macro" wouldn't be it.

Cyril

Re: Ideas...

Reply #6 –
I'm still trying to figure out whether LISP stands for "Language Invented to Sell Processors" or "Lots of Irritating Single Parentheses".

Re: Ideas...

Reply #7 –
Can't be the former, LISP was invented in 1959 or so, long before LISP processors.  And I was never irritated.  Actually, it stands for:

Long Incomprehensable Sequences of Parentheses

which could well start another language thread, as they are really parenthesis marks.  A parenthesis is the stuff between a matched set of marks (and doesn't even need the marks to be a parenthesis!)

[First definition in one of my dictionaries:

an amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence inserted in a passage from which it is usually set off by punctuation

of course, the third definition contradicts my claim, above -- that will teach me to buttress my statements with authority!]

Cyril

Re: Ideas...

Reply #8 –
Hmmm,

I keep thinking that I may need to learn programming language before I die.

Then I see the stuff, and hope I have an early death . . .

Re: Ideas...

Reply #9 –
IIRC, LISP stands also for !italic(lots of insipid and stupid parenthesis).
But this depends much on the way of indenting the lisp code ;^)
Cyril, if you love lisp, you may know that Emacs (or an adaptation of x-emacs) is available for windows ;)

About macro in programming language, the same as Cyril's says applies for C, or rather C preprocessor, or lex/yacc or vi editor, and many others. It can be considered as allowing the user(writer/programmer) to type less and perform more. Exactly what the macro recorder allows: with a single stroke you can do a lot of predefined actions.

Still, including "macros" in the meaning "fixed operations" such as a (pre)defined sequence of keys should be a new powerful step to automation (such as the "tripletise" command Andrew made years ago, see here)
I say "new" because the Find command has opened new possibilities (including "replace" with a (recorder.exe) macro :)
If someone knows how I could make the recorder.Exe work with NT, I would be very thankful !
    MAD (Macro Addicted Dominique ;)

Re: Ideas...

Reply #10 –
Though I have not used it yet with NWC, I have had good luck with this macro/scripting language (after trying several).  It is very flexible and can even tell some things about the state of programs:

http://www.hiddensoft.com/AutoIt/

In other words, there are options beyond the old Macro Recorder...

Re: Ideas...

Reply #11 –
Since the Win98 there is a script engine (whs) from Windows (as well 98 as NT - and I think - 2000). This makes possible the use of VBScript to make automate tasks in any Windows application in a language very similar to Visual Basic. Above it's VB-like (or direct VB) commands it can be programmed to send keystrokes to a window. This may help to build some automation.

Jozsef Fabian

Re: Ideas...

Reply #12 –
At home I still have Win3.11+32s, and Win95osr2.
At office I have NT4SP4, and no whs :( ("you don't need such a tool" my admin said)

If it does as much as the first page says, then AutoIt will be my solution.

(...) After further investigation, no WHS, but WSH.
And I won't say to my admin that it's installed! But it seems that it needs .js scripting in fact??

Off to AutoIt :-)

Re: Ideas...

Reply #13 –
>(By the way, I would LOVE to have Lisp as a macro/scripting >language!)

So would I!

Cyril, you used to use Lisp on IBM mainframes?

I just did some surfing and found that you co-wrote some papers on Lisp, including one in a journal I used to subscribe to.  Are you still at ibm.com or ibm.net?

I also did some work with Lisp on IBM mainframes (MVS in my case).  In fact, I built a Lisp system for our mainframe at Draper Lab back in the 80's, before IBM announced their Common LISP.

Sorry to take up the forum's time with this, but you know how it is without email addresses and all. :-)  Anyhow, if you want to reply to me directly, combine the three letters of my sig with the thing you put after a comma inside a backquoted list to splice in the contents of a list, the name of my lab, the character you use to cons two atoms together, and a "com". :-)  Or use my tag name above in place of the three-letter sig.

- seb
 

Re: Ideas...

Reply #14 –
 
Getting back to the point, I think it would be so good if NWC had its own script. "Novice" users would't benefit from it is a valid argument. But, how many of us can force the program to its limits already? In other words, how many Freds have we got? :-þ

Not everybody has to be a guru. However, oldies are always around for help.

Cheers,
Ertugrul

---
ertugrulinanc-at-ixir-dot-com