All positive change is gradual. In the meantime, for those of us with ample free time for coding, it'd be nice to have a place to check in code and unit tests that are organized roughly in the same way as Wikipedia. Maybe such a project already exists and I just haven't found it yet. > Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 23:01:50 +0300 > From: marty...@graphity.org > To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Accelerating software innovation with Wikidata and > improved Wikicode > > Yes, that is one of the reasons functional languages are getting popular: > https://www.fpcomplete.com/blog/2012/04/the-downfall-of-imperative-programming > With PHP and JavaScript being the most widespread (and still misused) > languages we will not get there soon, however. > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Michael Hale <hale.michael...@live.com> > wrote: > > In the functional programming language family (think Lisp) there is no > > fundamental distinction between code and data. > > > >> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 22:47:46 +0300 > >> From: marty...@graphity.org > > > >> To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Accelerating software innovation with Wikidata > >> and improved Wikicode > >> > >> Here's my approach to software code problems: we need less of it, not > >> more. We need to remove domain logic from source code and move it into > >> data, which can be managed and on which UI can be built. > >> In that way we can build generic scalable software agents. That is the > >> way to Semantic Web. > >> > >> Martynas > >> graphityhq.com > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Michael Hale <hale.michael...@live.com> > >> wrote: > >> > There are lots of code snippets scattered around the internet, but most > >> > of > >> > them can't be wired together in a simple flowchart manner. If you look > >> > at > >> > object libraries that are designed specifically for that purpose, like > >> > Modelica, you can do all sorts of neat engineering tasks like simulate > >> > the > >> > thermodynamics and power usage of a new refrigerator design. Then if > >> > your > >> > company is designing a new insulation material you would make a new > >> > "block" > >> > with the experimentally determined properties of your material to > >> > include in > >> > the programmatic flowchart to quickly calibrate other aspects of the > >> > refrigerator's design. To my understanding, Modelica is as big and good > >> > as > >> > it gets for code libraries that represent physically accurate objects. > >> > Often, the visual representation of those objects needs to be handled > >> > separately. As far as general purpose, standard programming libraries > >> > go, > >> > Mathematica is the best one I've found for quickly prototyping new > >> > functionality. A typical "web mashup" app or site will combine > >> > functionality > >> > and/or data from 3 to 6 APIs. Mobile apps will typically use the phone's > >> > functionality, an extra library for better graphics support, a > >> > proprietary > >> > library or two made by the company, and a couple of web APIs. A similar > >> > story for desktop media-editing programs, business software, and > >> > high-end > >> > games except the libraries are often larger. But there aren't many > >> > software > >> > libraries that I would describe as huge. And there are even fewer that > >> > manage to scale the usefulness of the library equally with the size it > >> > occupies on disk. > >> > > >> > Platform fragmentation (increase in number and popularity of smart > >> > phones > >> > and tablets) has proven to be a tremendous challenge for continuing to > >> > improve libraries. I now just have 15 different ways to draw a circle on > >> > different screens. The attempts to provide virtual machines with > >> > write-once > >> > run-anywhere functionality (Java and .NET) have failed, often due to > >> > customer lock-in reasons as much as platform fragmentation. Flash isn't > >> > designed to grow much beyond its current scope. The web standards can > >> > only > >> > progress as quickly as the least common denominator of functionality > >> > provided by other means, which is better than nothing I suppose. > >> > Mathematica > >> > has continued to improve their library (that's essentially what they > >> > sell), > >> > but they don't try to cover a lot of platforms. They also aren't open > >> > source > >> > and don't attempt to make the entire encyclopedia interactive and > >> > programmable. Open source attempts like the Boost C++ library don't seem > >> > to > >> > grow very quickly. But I think using Wikipedia articles as a scaffold > >> > for a > >> > massive open source, object-oriented library might be what is needed. > >> > > >> > I have a few approaches I use to decide what code to write next. They > >> > can be > >> > arranged from most useful as an exercise to stay sharp in the long term > >> > to > >> > most immediately useful for a specific project. Sometimes I just write > >> > code > >> > in a vacuum. Like, I will just choose a simple task like making a 2D > >> > ball > >> > bounce around some stairs interactively and I will just spend a few > >> > hours > >> > writing it and rewriting it to be more efficient and easier to expand. > >> > It > >> > always gives me a greater appreciation for the types of details that can > >> > be > >> > specified to a computer (and hence the scope of the computational > >> > universe, > >> > or space of all computer programs). Like with the ball bouncing example > >> > you > >> > can get lost defining interesting options for the ball and the ground or > >> > in > >> > the geometry logic for calculating the intersections (like if the ball > >> > doesn't deform or if the stairs have certain constraints on their shape > >> > there are optimizations you can make). At the end of the exercise I > >> > still > >> > just have a ball bouncing down some stairs, but my mind feels like it > >> > has > >> > been on a journey. Sometimes I try to write code that I think a group of > >> > people would find useful. I will browse the articles in the areas of > >> > computer science category by popularity and start writing the first > >> > things I > >> > see that aren't already in the libraries I use. So I'll expand > >> > Mathematica's > >> > FindClusters function to support density based methods or I'll expand > >> > the > >> > RandomSample function to support files that are too large to fit in > >> > memory > >> > with a reservoir sampling algorithm. Finally, I write code for specific > >> > projects. I'm trying to genetically engineer turf grass that doesn't > >> > need to > >> > be cut, so I need to automate some of the work I do for GenBank imports > >> > and > >> > sequence comparisons. For all of those, if there was an organized place > >> > to > >> > put my code afterwards so it would fit into a larger useful library I > >> > would > >> > totally be willing to do a little bit of gluing work to help fit it all > >> > together. > >> > > >> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 19:13:54 +0200 > >> >> From: jane...@gmail.com > >> >> To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > > >> >> Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Accelerating software innovation with > >> >> Wikidata > >> >> and improved Wikicode > >> >> > >> >> I am all for a "dictionary of code snippets", but as with all > >> >> dictionaries, you need a way to group them, either by alphabetical > >> >> order or "birth date". It sounds like you have an idea how to group > >> >> those code samples, so why don't you share it? I would love to build > >> >> my own "pipeline" from a series of algorithms that someone else > >> >> published for me to reuse. I am also for more sharing of datacentric > >> >> programs, but where would the data be stored? Wikidata is for data > >> >> that can be used by Wikipedia, not by other projects, though maybe > >> >> someday we will find the need to put actual weather measurements in > >> >> Wikidata for some oddball Wikisource project tp do with the history of > >> >> global warming or something like that. > >> >> > >> >> I just don't quite see how your idea would translate in the > >> >> Wiki(p/m)edia world into a project that could be indexed. > >> >> > >> >> But then I never felt the need for "high-fidelity simulations of > >> >> virtual worlds" either. > >> >> > >> >> 2013/7/6, Michael Hale <hale.michael...@live.com>: > >> >> > I have been pondering this for some time, and I would like some > >> >> > feedback. I > >> >> > figure there are many programmers on this list, but I think others > >> >> > might > >> >> > find it interesting as well. > >> >> > Are you satisfied with our progress in increasing software > >> >> > sophistication as > >> >> > compared to, say, increasing the size of datacenters? Personally, I > >> >> > think > >> >> > there is still too much "reinventing the wheel" going on, and the > >> >> > best > >> >> > way > >> >> > to get to software that is complex enough to do things like > >> >> > high-fidelity > >> >> > simulations of virtual worlds is to essentially crowd-source the > >> >> > translation > >> >> > of Wikipedia into code. The existing structure of the Wikipedia > >> >> > articles > >> >> > would serve as a scaffold for a large, consistently designed, > >> >> > open-source > >> >> > software library. Then, whether I was making software for weather > >> >> > prediction > >> >> > and I needed code to slowly simulate physically accurate clouds or I > >> >> > was > >> >> > making a game and I needed code to quickly draw stylized clouds I > >> >> > could > >> >> > just > >> >> > go to the article for clouds, click on C++ (or whatever programming > >> >> > language > >> >> > is appropriate) and then find some useful chunks of code. Every > >> >> > article > >> >> > could link to useful algorithms, data structures, and interface > >> >> > designs > >> >> > that > >> >> > are relevant to the subject of the article. You could also find > >> >> > data-centric > >> >> > programs too. Like, maybe a JavaScript weather statistics browser and > >> >> > visualizer that accesses Wikidata. The big advantage would be that > >> >> > constraining the design of the library to the structure of Wikipedia > >> >> > would > >> >> > handle the encapsulation and modularity aspects of the software > >> >> > engineering > >> >> > so that the components could improve independently. Creating a > >> >> > simulation or > >> >> > visualization where you zoom in from a whole cloud to see its > >> >> > constituent > >> >> > microscopic particles is certainly doable right now, but it would be > >> >> > a > >> >> > lot > >> >> > easier with a function library like this. > >> >> > If you look at the existing Wikicode and Rosetta Code the code > >> >> > samples > >> >> > are > >> >> > small and isolated. They will show, for example, how to open a file > >> >> > in > >> >> > 10 > >> >> > different languages. However, the search engines already do a great > >> >> > job > >> >> > of > >> >> > helping us find those types of code samples across blog posts of > >> >> > people > >> >> > who > >> >> > have had to do that specific task before. However, a problem that I > >> >> > run > >> >> > into > >> >> > frequently that the search engines don't help me solve is if I read a > >> >> > nanoelectronics paper and I want to do a simulation of the physical > >> >> > system > >> >> > they describe I often have to go to the websites of several different > >> >> > professors and do a fair bit of manual work to assemble their > >> >> > different > >> >> > programs into a pipeline, and then the result of my hacking is not > >> >> > easy > >> >> > to > >> >> > expand to new scenarios. We've made enough progress on Wikipedia that > >> >> > I > >> >> > can > >> >> > often just click on a couple of articles to get an understanding of > >> >> > the > >> >> > paper, but if I want to experiment with the ideas in a software > >> >> > context > >> >> > I > >> >> > have to do a lot of scavenging and gluing. > >> >> > I'm not yet convinced that this could work. Maybe Wikipedia works so > >> >> > well > >> >> > because the internet reached a point where there was so much > >> >> > redundant > >> >> > knowledge listed in many places that there was immense social and > >> >> > economic > >> >> > pressure to utilize knowledgeable people to summarize it in a free > >> >> > encyclopedia. Maybe the total amount of software that has been > >> >> > written > >> >> > is > >> >> > still too small, there are still too few programmers, and it's still > >> >> > too > >> >> > difficult compared to writing natural languages for the crowdsourcing > >> >> > dynamics to work. There have been a lot of successful open-source > >> >> > software > >> >> > projects of course, but most of them are focused on creating software > >> >> > for a > >> >> > specific task instead of library components that cover all of the > >> >> > knowledge > >> >> > in the encyclopedia. > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Wikidata-l mailing list > >> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Wikidata-l mailing list > >> > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikidata-l mailing list > >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
