#56761 - 2001-06-27 05:31 AM
Re: Comparisons between KIX, Scriptlogic, WSH, etc.
|
MCA
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-04-28
Posts: 5152
Loc: Netherlands, EU
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#56762 - 2001-06-27 04:15 PM
Re: Comparisons between KIX, Scriptlogic, WSH, etc.
|
Shawn
Administrator
Registered: 1999-08-13
Posts: 8611
|
Kent,I just whipped this table up (literally) off the top of my head. This comparison was not based any documentation and was in no way throughly researched. It's just my gut feelings on things. However, it may stimulate (heated) discussion and at the end of the day - provide us with a good comparision. All feedback and critizisms welcome !!! Plus - I'm not too familiar with ScriptLogic either, so maybe Brian Styles can fill in some blanks ... The rankings are 1 (first place) 2 (second place) and 3 (third place). In the case of a tie - both or all three are assigned first place. The lower the score, the better (more first places) The categories, their meanings, and the rankings are totally subjective and open to debate... The fact that all three tied was not by design ... but it is interesting and I guess the moral here (so far) is that each product has it's strengths and weaknesses ... let's see what some of the other members feel about this ... please submit your own tables if you like ... code:
RANKINGS:CATEGORY KIXTART WSH SCRIPTLOGIC FUNCTIONALITY - LOGIN 1 2 1 FUNCTIONALITY - GENERIC 2 1 3 EXPANDABILITY 2 1 3 FLEXIBILTY 2 1 3 RELIABILITY 1 1 1 PORTABILITY 1 2 1 EASE OF USE 2 3 1 PERFORMANCE 3 2 1 SUPPORT 2 3 1 PRICE 1 1 2 TOTALS: 17 17 17
-Shawn
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#56767 - 2001-06-27 08:11 PM
Re: Comparisons between KIX, Scriptlogic, WSH, etc.
|
Shawn
Administrator
Registered: 1999-08-13
Posts: 8611
|
Kent:Yeah, to my mind, the only way to "EXPAND" a scripting language is through the use of COM/OLE. KiX and WSH both can be expanded with vendor and third-party snapins. But the OLE support in KiXtart (the old OLExxx functions) only provide about 80% of OLE functionality. It's missing some important (syntacical) features like nested object references and indexed properties. Add to that - the OLE functions are tough to use and understand and that KiXtart OLE doesn't even work on Windows 9x !!! So that's why I ranked EXPANDABILITY as WSH,KIX,SL (in that order) ... OLE expandability is important for Windows 2000 (I think) mostly because you'll want access to the Active Directory Services Interface (ADSI) and to Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) ... I mean, you can probably get by without these "goodies" but man - the power these services provide are beyond belief... granted maybe more so in administrative scripts than in logon scripts ... KiXtart 2001 will have greatly improved COM support in version 4.0 - approaching that of WSH - but like we all know - it ain't done yet and KiXtart 2001 might take a "RELIABILITY" hit on this in the short term. WSH COM is tried and true. FLEXIBILITY is a category that means "what can you do with what you've got". One can't remove OLE totally from this equation because a lot of what WSH provides is implemented as COM objects (that get installed along with WSH). I kinda figured that just about anything you can do in KiXtart, you can also do in WSH. But I had to give the edge to WSH on this for the following reasons ... 1) More variable types - floating point, mutildimensional arrays, etc. 2) You get two languages to (seamlessly) choose from - VBScript or JavaScript 3) Much, much better file i/o support (mega faster too!!!) But just in terms of pure logon script functionality (groups,maps,pokes) maybe KiXtart has a slight lead (with it's specialized functions) - but big picture - WSH has more generic "FLEXIBILITY" ... Like I said - all this is based more on my gut feel than anything else - I'd still like to see someone (like yourself) evolve another table for comparision. Especially if they use ScriptLogic software of have any direct experiences with using WSH as a logon script ... -Shawn
[This message has been edited by Shawn (edited 27 June 2001).]
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#56769 - 2001-06-28 02:29 PM
Re: Comparisons between KIX, Scriptlogic, WSH, etc.
|
cj
MM club member
Registered: 2000-04-06
Posts: 1102
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Regarding MulitDimensional Arrays,KiX can do 2D arrays: a sippet from the IFS Fractal script
code:
; Sierpinsky's triangle dim $sierp[3] $sierp[0]=50,0,0,0,50,0 $sierp[1]=50,0,301,0,50,0 $sierp[2]=50,0,0,0,50,301
this is a 6 by 3 array now, 6 columns and 3 rows. You reference it like this: $array[row][column] you can even mix contents, like this: code:
; Sierpinsky's triangle dim $sierp[4] $sierp[0]=300,300,1,1 $sierp[1]="0.5",0,0,0,"0.5",0 $sierp[2]="0.5",0,301,0,"0.5",0 $sierp[3]="0.5",0,0,0,"0.5",301
so now some cells are strings and some are integers. ('course you don't need to do this in VBS as you can use Real numbers ) cj ------------------ cj's scripts page cj's User Guide - 14 May 2001 chrismat@ozemail.com.au
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#56770 - 2001-06-28 03:13 PM
Re: Comparisons between KIX, Scriptlogic, WSH, etc.
|
Jochen
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-03-17
Posts: 6380
Loc: Stuttgart, Germany
|
CJ !You're absolutely right ... we now have 'real' 2dimensional Arrays ... here's a short test I hacked together after reading your reply : code:
break on clsdim $row[4] $row[0] = "A","B","C","D","E","F","G","H" $row[1] = "B","C","D","E","F","G","H","I" $row[2] = "C","D","E","F","G","H","I","J" $row[3] = "D","E","F","G","H","I","J","K" for $rc = 0 to ubound($row) for $col = 0 to ubound($row[$rc]) at($rc*2,$col*2)$row[$rc][$col] next next get $k
Jochen
hmmm ... the next time I have to take a lot more closer look to your scripts than i have before ...
[This message has been edited by jpols (edited 28 June 2001).]
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Glenn Barnas, NTDOC, Arend_, Jochen, Radimus, Allen, ShaneEP, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 557 anonymous users online.
|
|
|