Installer for auto execute a3x files

[Jos]

1 hour ago, Schnuffel said:

please, I do not want to abuse or illegally pass on the work of Jos in any way.

I haven't read anything illegal as yet, and I assume you are talking about AutoIt3Wrapper, not AutoIt3 as that isn't my development. 🙂

I am really wondering whether you are still chasing the x86/x64 question around a3x when reading your last posts? Was there anything unclear in my replies about that, or did the extra posts from the others confuse you?

[Schnuffel]

I'm afraid I was a little misunderstood. Basically, I want to have an AutoIt installation that only provides a3x support on the target computer. Example:
I write a script that I want to distribute to X users. So that the script (I hope) can be distributed as an a3x file and started by the user, the user needs an AutoIt3.exe and ideally also a shortcut for a3x files so that the AutoIt3.exe can start them directly on double-click. And that's all. Since the “Minimal” installation of AutoIt was still too extensive for me, I thought of an EndUser “Tiny” installation.
I could have just asked @Jon if he would be willing to extend his setup so that there is a “Tiny” / a3x option in his installation routine. That's it. ^^
Playing around with this topic, I just noticed in passing that a3x files are always associated with the x86 version of AutoIt3 in the registry. But this was only mentioned in passing and neither the main goal of this thread nor a significant circumstance.
I hope I have been able to clear up the confusion surrounding this topic.
@Jos I really confused you. ^^
I didn't really realize there was a Jos and a Jon

But the issue also affects you, as there is no option in Scite to create a3x files for AutoIt3_x64.exe. You cannot do this on your own as long as there is no support for a3x(64) files in the registry and AutoIt3_x64 is called for this.
But for this Jon would have to extend his setup and integrate this file type. Then you could also support the x86 / x64 option when compiling a3x files using this independent file type.

Regarding the “black hat” issue:
The problem with script kiddies or other “bad” guys is not that there is a scripting language that doesn't attract attention through virus scanners, but the fact that all these people need an admin token to do damage. Nothing of the sort happens with a3x support. If I want, I can do exactly the same damage with cmd, vbs, ps1 and co. as with a3x.

@argumentum PS: if we humans didn't invent all the things that a bad person can abuse for fear of it, we would probably still be sitting in the forest without a campfire, scraping the bark off the tree with our fingernails 🙂

I don't mean that in a bad way, just the way I see things.

Edited January 23 by Schnuffel

[argumentum]

7 hours ago, Schnuffel said:

I could have just asked @Jon if he would be willing to extend his setup so that there is a “Tiny” / a3x option in his installation routine. That's it. ^^

Am neither of them but the answer to a tiny install is: no.

7 hours ago, Schnuffel said:

But the issue also affects you, as there is no option in Scite to create a3x files for ....

The a3x file is the tokenized file that is included as a resource for the stub ( the executable ). It can be given any extension name.
So it can run from within the stub ( as compiled executable ) or referenced as external resource ( as file )

7 hours ago, Schnuffel said:

Regarding the “black hat” issue:

...the black hat issue is that I brought up given that you rather not inform the user of the interpreter of the file/

7 hours ago, Schnuffel said:

@argumentum PS: if we humans didn't invent...

In that regard, I invented pain. Or so I thought until I learned that is common place. Then again am lucky that I didn't come up with something that produced death

Again, am not against your wish of a better distribution for our work. If someone ( maybe you ) comes up with something OMG!, @UEZ will take a lower standing in my list of gods ( I call god those that can do what I never could yet ) and you'll be my favorite god 

[argumentum]

8 hours ago, Schnuffel said:

If I want, I can do exactly the same damage with cmd, vbs, ps1 and co. as with a3x.

cmd, vbs, ps1 and co. are plain text. You can read the file an know what it does.
a3x on the other hand is not plain text and can not know what it does.

AutoIt was design to aid admins but, got expanded to a beautiful, very capable tool. Actually the big fuss with MVPs since early on, was that they wanted to make it too powerful and Jon said no. And I don't disagree.

Write it in C or what not if you need more. Look at Rust and the caveats of using Rust for an example, ...and the many languages that never quite hit the spot so to say.

AutoIt is fine for what is meant to do, even if we abuse it, and use it to code full fledged programs. My 2 cents anyway

[jchd]

9 hours ago, Schnuffel said:

as there is no option in Scite to create a3x files for AutoIt3_x64.exe

As @Jos already told you, there is no such thing as "a3x files for AutoIt3_x64.exe". Any a3x file can be run as X86 by AutoIt3.exe or run as X64 by AutoIt3_x64.exe.

Of course if the source code relies on X64 features, then the resulting a3x has to be run by AutoIt3_x64.exe.

[SOLVE-SMART]

By the way @argumentum:
Thanks for talking part on the discussion here and also in the german forum. For those who are not reading the conversation here, it's helpful to complete it also in the german one, like you did (and I also do) 👍 .

Best regards
Sven

[Schnuffel]

Well, I don't think the discussion is going any further here and can therefore be ended.
Thank you for your participation, the input I have received and I will draw my conclusions from it.

Many thanks to everyone involved

- Topic can be closed -

[Jos]

@Schnuffellets continue this discussion in PM to keep it clean and consise so we are able to tackle 1 part of you steps at a time starting with your x64 option for a3x so you fully understand how things work. 

Please PM me with an simple answer whether you have understood what I've explained on that topic!