From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Guix Workflow Language ?
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:55:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ3jvyLZ0pncKiw5e+qF8UYaS22D1eSy4LeFT2y-fUzypg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180126130520.GB15888@thebird.nl>
Dear,
Thank you for all your explanations.
Concerning the point about the 'lisppy' syntax.
Thank you Ricardo to point out the WISP initiative. Even if I watched
all the previous guile/guix FOSDEM videos, I have not realized that it
should be an elegant path to reduce the gap.
As Christopher Lemmer Webber said during the presentation, WISP-style
seems less scary for non-lisper people. :-)
If someone needs pointers:
https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/srfi-119.html
http://www.draketo.de/english/wisp
Concerning the point about the origin of a software package in CWL.
I am not sure to understand well all the mechanisms.
If I understand well, GWL tracks the packages with `package-inputs'
(Guix API etc.). And it seems possible somehow to fix a specific version
of a software (e.g., commit hash of Guix tree).
About CWL, I have never tried myself and it seems harder. Right ?
However, the specs mentions the `SoftwarePackage' field:
http://www.commonwl.org/v1.0/Workflow.html#SoftwareRequirement
Is it not enough ?
@Cook, Malcolm
Hum? https://www.guixwl.org/getting-started is not currently 503.
If it is and you want to give a quick look, try:
https://git.roelj.com/guix/gwl/src/master/gwl/www/pages/getting-started.md
Concerning to be or not to be CWL.
Thank you for the comments. I am giving a look at CWL because I have
read the Piotr's paper mentioned here. :-)
Quote:
GWL is a great alternative. But it needs LISP and it may need a bit
more development to make it a smooth experience. If more people
help out I am sure we can get there.
I totally agree ! That's why I am asking :-)
As Pjotr also said: "The promise is truly shared pipelines - and, so
far, it has not happened." and from my opinion, there is 3 issues: "the
number of tools to learn and know enough to be able to adapt; the
bits/pieces already available; the environment/dependencies and how they
are managed.". If one point is not strong enough, then all fails.
Currently, GWL is the strongest available about env/deps management.
However, Lisp is not mainstream, especially with Bio* and few
pieces/workflow are already available.
That's why I asked if "does it appear to you reasonable to write a
front-end for CWL ?". Because:
- CWL appears to me enough simple;
- the CWL community seems large (at least larger than GWL ;-)
Well, the "lisp scaryness" should be fixed by WISP.
The community is work in progress :-)
From my point of view, GWL is two sides:
- the Guix Workflow, the engine of worklows which is already awesome !!
- the Workflow Language, the lisp EDSL which is hard to buy for the
non-lispers.
If I understand well, the future which is described is: improve the
engine with the current description language. Since the manpower is not
extensible and Guix allows to decrease the pain when extending the
engine, I think that the inputs (language) deserve more love. Well,
people who are doing is the future :-)
Last, I do not understand how 2 workflow engines can co-exist. It is
error-prone and a spaghetti plate that I will not eat. :-)
Happy FOSDEM !! (for people who are going)
Hope that nice ideas will be discussed during the GWL session. :-)
All the best,
simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-29 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-24 14:25 Guix Workflow Language ? zimoun
2018-01-24 20:07 ` Roel Janssen
2018-01-25 16:16 ` zimoun
2018-01-25 20:36 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-01-25 22:04 ` Roel Janssen
2018-01-25 22:23 ` Cook, Malcolm
2018-01-26 13:05 ` Pjotr Prins
2018-01-29 16:55 ` zimoun [this message]
2018-01-30 1:57 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-02-15 17:28 ` zimoun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJ3okZ3jvyLZ0pncKiw5e+qF8UYaS22D1eSy4LeFT2y-fUzypg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=pjotr.public12@thebird.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).