ThinkLinkr, another pretty slick web-based outliner.
The Smart Disorganized reboot is still in progress ….
Today, a sad story about GeekWeaver.
A couple of weeks ago I needed to revamp Gbloink!’s web presence. Quickly. And, I was in no position to do it in GW. So I fired up a copy of WordPress and made : Gbloink!
You spot the trend? The answer to “how do I knock up a decent-looking site? fast?” is to use WordPress. I’m seriously thinking of doing it for my own homepage too.
Obviously, these are the kinds of scenarios for which I envisaged GeekWeaver. So what’s gone wrong?
Several things :
– I got over-ambitious. The basic GeekWeaver as templating language, worked great. But I wanted to make it into a full sophisticated Lispish sort of a functional programming language. That side-tracked me into several attempted rewrites before I shelved it with other unfinished projects.
– The OPML Editor worked great in Windows XP. But was horrible in Vista. And now I’m using Linux most of the time. I can run it under Wine, but it feels clunky to do so. So I don’t have a decent OPML editor. There are still, surprisingly few outliners in Linux, and still no convenient outline editing widget for the browser.
– Great templates are the real win. An earlier version of GeekWeaver shipped with decent free template I got from somewhere or other. But I’m not a good HTML / CSS designer and I could neither adapt it to my changing requirements nor really design another. I guess the answer is to work with a designer. But as one of the proposals for GW was to make web-design more “programmer-friendly” (by introducing the programmer’s favourite tool, abstraction, to HTML) that’s rather a contradictory point. Chalk one up to web-designers and one against GeekWeaver.
– Moreover, it’s hard to compete against a rich ecosystem like WordPress. Among thousands of templates and plug-ins from dozens of contributors, are some pretty damned good ones.
So is GeekWeaver a failure? Am I abandoning it?
Well, it’s not yet a success, I’ll agree. 🙂
I still *believe* that there’s a niche for a GeekWeaver-like language : something with the quick and dirty characteristics of early Perl or PHP; that let’s you get a lot done quickly; and who’s philosophy is “templating” at a granularity above the individual page or file. There’s no reason that, if I had time and another burst of interest, I might not make further progress taking GeekWeaver in that direction.
But I now have a (more than) full-time day-job writing social software in Python which leaves little time (or inclination) for a lot more experiments in python for web-site making. So GW is definitely on hiatus while I pursue other projects.
Nevertheless, I’m always coming back and thinking what I should do with it. You never know when inspiration might strike again.
 This raises another sceptical doubt. Allowing you to define abstractions is meant to make things easier. If it doesn’t make “web-design” easier, am I barking up the wrong tree?
 In fact, I’m working with Django. Which brings a lot of other concerns and ideas. It was easy to see how GW could compile down to PHP. But would it make sense to try to compile it down to Django?
XHP actually looks pretty cool. On the surface, it’s just a cleaned up PHP. But the cleaning up (putting XML into the language) actually gives it some of the character I was hoping for in GeekWeaver.
A quick thought … working with a lot of Django and Pinax at the moment, I’m seeing a lot of use of Python’s varargs. Functions that just take *argv, **kwargs
I find I don’t like this. I want to see argument lists as explicit as possible. I feel uncomfortable and a bit lost. I feel unprotected when the compiler can’t even check the number of arguments I’m sending.
So I wonder if this is legitimate. Or isn’t it analogous to the case of static typing? Varargs give more flexibility than fixed arguments. Much as dynamic typing is more flexible than static. So why shouldn’t I prefer the power and flexibility over restriction and security in this case?
Update : Of course, this is the way that GeekWeaver works, where there’s no explicit definition of the list of arguments passed to a reusable block. I’ve been unhappy with that there too. Thinking that I should add positional explicit named arguement lists. But if this kwargs thing is a trend, then GW should probably be left as it is.
Phil Windley on creating your own Domain Specific Language.
Dave Winer’s back on the Windows OPML Editor … which is great for me and for GeekWeaver (‘cos I don’t have a Mac and there’s no Linux port yet.)
Meanwhile … anyone know other decent OPML editors? I’d be particularly interested in ones that run in the browser.
Smart Disorganized Philosophy #1
I’ve been on a Smart Disorganized Individuals tip for several years, now. Always writing software compatible with that philosophy.
But what is the philosophy? What does this software mean?
In this series I’ll start to make some specific notes towards that. Here’s the first.
SdiDesk is wiki : a network of texts.
GeekWeaver is a programming language written in an outliner : a hierarchy.
Mind Traffic Control is a multi-user, dynamic queue, a “flow” of tasks.
Each is SDI. Each is completely different. Each is for specific purpose.
SdiDesk excels at capturing ideas and the relationships between them that are static.
Outlines excel at authoring or creating structure which is ultimately intended for a reader.
Flows excel at capturing change and movement.
OTOH, each is bad for something. These are true, even if you might imagine them not to be.
Wiki is surprisingly bad for authoring. Outliners are surprisingly bad for managing todo-lists. Flows are a surprisingly bad place to put ideas that you want to keep forever.
Wiki is great for writing, but awkward for the kind of reworking and structuring needed to polish a document for an external audience.
Outliners fail to match the dynamism of shifting tasks and priorities in the real world. They focus on making a structure of something which needs little structure.
MTC will lose your ideas when they are no longer in the future.
Sometimes you need to take a step back from a problem, to see the forest for the trees.
GeekWeaver was being held up by something that seemed a rather complicated knot; one that I’ve wrestled with a number of times but never really untangled to my satisfaction.
So last night I decided to restart with a clean slate. I didn’t look at the existing code or existing unit-tests. Didn’t even open my IDE or project file.
I just started up IDLE and in a single file, redid the whole thing from scratch, in a fast test-driven stylee.
Amazingly I think I’ve come out with a cleaner solution, messing around with fewer classes and no attempt to over-re-use with inheritance. The whole thing took about two hours total. Of course, it’s not quite finished, and still needs to be integrated back into the main codebase. But I like it a lot more. It’s shorter and easier to understand.
Sometimes (at a certain granularity) old code *is* more of a burden than an asset. Understanding what it does and what you can do it is a cognitive cost that outweighs its value. Don’t be afraid to throw code away when you need to.
Caveat for small granularities. Obviously rewriting an entire application from scratch is a different matter.
I’m way too busy now … but I’m having some kicking ideas about my own grandiose bid to improve programming …
… think GeekWeaver in an SdiDesk-alike editor (obviously).
Then imagine that *everything* is a template.
That’s the way that GeekWeaver is already going. Everything is a template (ie. has named slots that can be filled). Function calls are just the injection of a data-block into that template. Another way of putting it, all objects know how to handle the “call” message with a data-block as argument, even if they don’t do anything very useful with it.
But now imagine that all the types of things you can get in SdiDesk … text pages, grids, network diagrams, are also templates. And you can plug and pipe them together any way you like. One page can hold a table, another a network diagram-shaped template, and a third can be specified as the result of injecting the first into the second.
Hmmm … this definitely looks like it’s going in the right direction.
And I thought I was ambitious, trying to write a programming language!
My friend Oli has decided to reinvent programming as we know it. Details are still trickling out via his web-site : Semantic Programming. And I’m in frenzied skype conversation with him, trying to figure out what it’s all about.
In outline, it starts from some intuitions behind the Semantic Web : that there should be a massively parallel, distributed graph-shaped database of facts (relational assertions) represented on different machines across the world. But it then layers programming on top of that. Instead of a passive data-structure crawled by scutters, SemProg agents (roughly, the servers which manage different data-nodes) are active. There is message passing between the facts themselves, and agents may have hardwired interpretation to act on some facts (what Oli is calling “axiomatic” understanding), or a “deductive” understanding (I guess rather like Prolog inference), and even a “behavioural” understanding via (I guess again) learning from observing other agents.
I’ll keep following this here on Smart Disorganized. Very interesting if it works out.
Would GeekWeaver support Semantic Programming? It seems like Oli is thinking of multiple editors for different types of information, all of which compile down to the same underlying graph-structured format so that the data can be combined. (Rather like Language Oriented Programming.) It seems quite possible that GeekWeaver could output something like his graph-format. I’ll certainly be experimenting.
I’m also trying to persuade Oli to look at Erlang as a potential implementation language for the distributed virtual machine. I’m increasingly impressed by Erlang. Finding it very powerful and concise.