The current template code is ugly, but it does work. Few people can understand the source code of the more intricate templates, which is a shame, but we are getting very good use out of the ugly wikicode. We have a huge number of templates that do a lot of good with the limited ParserFunctions we have.
I understand the developers want to replace it with a new template programming language, but we should be aware of the risks. Starting over from scratch and making it clean this time is one of the most common ways to begin a spectacular failure in software development. Joel Spolsky write a good column on it in 2000: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Is it even possible to sandbox Lua to guard against any exploits, even the kind that just overloads the servers? Will it integrate well with articles written in Wikicode? How long will it take until we can use it?
Most people don't need to understand advanced templates, just use it. There is actually no lack of powerful templates. We have a lot of them. The problem is that they are too hard to use.
{{Birth date and age}} is a rather popular template we use to show a persons birth date and automatically calculate the current age. It allows us to provide this without having to update it every year. I guess some developers hate us for doing something like that in wikicode, but hey, it works. The only problem it that it's hard to read in the article code. It is used as {{Birth date and age|1993|2|4|mf=yes}}. If we had the StringFunctions extension enabled it could be simplified to take dates like 1993-02-04 rather than 1993|2|4. Perhaps it could even take plain text dates like "February 4, 1993". If we had the variables extension one could specify the dateformat (month or day first) in one place in the article and template like {{Birth date and age}} would follow.
We are stuck with templates that are hard to use because the developers are against allowing useful programming constructs in wikicode. I really wouldn't mind a good "real" programming language for templates, but should we really but all eggs in one basket?
/Apoc2400
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Apoc 2400apoc2400@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
{{Birth date and age}} is a rather popular template we use to show a persons birth date and automatically calculate the current age. It allows us to provide this without having to update it every year. I guess some developers hate us for doing something like that in wikicode, but hey, it works. The only problem it that it's hard to read in the article code. It is used as {{Birth date and age|1993|2|4|mf=yes}}. If we had the StringFunctions extension enabled it could be simplified to take dates like 1993-02-04 rather than 1993|2|4. Perhaps it could even take plain text dates like "February 4, 1993". If we had the variables extension one could specify the dateformat (month or day first) in one place in the article and template like {{Birth date and age}} would follow.
I think we *already* have templates that can take February 4, 1993 (or something similar). They had some weird name, similar to the current templates, but slightly different. I can't find them right now, but maybe someone else remembers them?
Carcharoth
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Apoc 2400apoc2400@gmail.com wrote:
The current template code is ugly, but it does work.
It uses up an enormous amount of CPU resources, and there have been some cases where it's spectacularly failed. Complicated templates have been responsible for bringing down sites more than once. If [[Michael Jackson]] had been written in simple wikitext with no templates, the rush to read it probably wouldn't have brought down Wikipedia, for instance -- it was only so severe because the page took many seconds to parse.
There have been previous incidents too. In one case I can't recall the specifics of, a sysadmin had to delete a template on eswiki after it crashed at least that site (I think also affecting other sites on the same cluster, can't recall).
Not to mention, of course, that there are plenty of people (especially programmers) who would be happy to help out with some template coding -- but don't because the code is so horrifying.
I understand the developers want to replace it with a new template programming language, but we should be aware of the risks. Starting over from scratch and making it clean this time is one of the most common ways to begin a spectacular failure in software development. Joel Spolsky write a good column on it in 2000: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
No one is suggesting that ParserFunctions will be disabled. The new system will be added in parallel, and assuming it's really superior, it will replace ParserFunctions over time. (That essay is irrelevant here anyway. We're not talking about rewriting MediaWiki or any other project from scratch.)
Is it even possible to sandbox Lua to guard against any exploits, even the kind that just overloads the servers?
That's one of the major problems with the suggestion. It's part of why nothing has been finalized yet. (The other key problem is making sure Wikipedia content is easily usable by third parties on shared hosting.)
Will it integrate well with articles written in Wikicode?
That would depend on the implementation details, which are very far from being worked out.
How long will it take until we can use it?
This is all still purely theoretical at this point. We haven't even worked out if a solution is possible, let alone started setting even the most preliminary timetables.
Most people don't need to understand advanced templates, just use it. There is actually no lack of powerful templates. We have a lot of them. The problem is that they are too hard to use.
Partly because some things are too difficult to do in ParserFunctions. More intelligent parameter handling would be possible using a real language. Of course, StringFunctions would work as well, to a lesser extent.
It is used as {{Birth date and age|1993|2|4|mf=yes}}. If we had the StringFunctions extension enabled it could be simplified to take dates like 1993-02-04 rather than 1993|2|4. Perhaps it could even take plain text dates like "February 4, 1993".
This should already work just fine using {{#time}}. I'd say most likely, nobody's bothered to do it because template programming is so incredibly obnoxious that only a dedicated few can muster the willpower to struggle through it. A real language with normal syntax would mean that someone like me -- a programmer -- could go over right now and fix it up in a couple of minutes. But I'm not even going to try messing with such a mess of curly braces.
We are stuck with templates that are hard to use because the developers are against allowing useful programming constructs in wikicode.
Not all are.
2009/7/3 Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Apoc 2400apoc2400@gmail.com wrote:
The current template code is ugly, but it does work.
It uses up an enormous amount of CPU resources, and there have been some cases where it's spectacularly failed. Complicated templates have been responsible for bringing down sites more than once. If [[Michael Jackson]] had been written in simple wikitext with no templates, the rush to read it probably wouldn't have brought down Wikipedia, for instance -- it was only so severe because the page took many seconds to parse.
There have been previous incidents too. In one case I can't recall the specifics of, a sysadmin had to delete a template on eswiki after it crashed at least that site (I think also affecting other sites on the same cluster, can't recall).
And with the exception of the Jackson issue I understand those issues have been fixed. The jackson issue is somewhat questionable if it can be solved by a new code setup. Give people a new code setup and they will find a way to do unexpected things with that to. Remember the days when VFD made made a significant dent in server load?
Heh issue long predates wikipedia in any case. Back in the early 70s Southampton university created SOFOR because standard FORTRAN didn't compile fast enough.
Not to mention, of course, that there are plenty of people (especially programmers) who would be happy to help out with some template coding -- but don't because the code is so horrifying.
Programmers are not who we are primarily interested in with regards to template code. There are far fewer programmers than non programmers and they are more in demand by open source groups.
It's far more important that our template code be accessible to non programmers than it be something programmers like. It also needs to be accessible within a wikipedia environment something a traditional language is unlikely to be. Template code may look bad but in practice it's fairly resistant to people copying and pasting then playing with to get what they want.
No one is suggesting that ParserFunctions will be disabled. The new system will be added in parallel, and assuming it's really superior, it will replace ParserFunctions over time.
Questionable. Check out the templates on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Pinsent
Old code unless bot eliminated (msg:stub for example) tends not to die.
On 03/07/2009, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
And with the exception of the Jackson issue I understand those issues have been fixed. The jackson issue is somewhat questionable if it can be solved by a new code setup. Give people a new code setup and they will find a way to do unexpected things with that to. Remember the days when VFD made made a significant dent in server load?
Maybe, although if there's particular bottlenecks, you're usually better off just optimising those; hardcoding a few common templates in some non user accessible language is likely to be a lot less work than an entirely new programming language. Actually there doubtless are already multiple languages available.
Programmers are not who we are primarily interested in with regards to template code. There are far fewer programmers than non programmers and they are more in demand by open source groups.
It's far more important that our template code be accessible to non programmers than it be something programmers like. It also needs to be accessible within a wikipedia environment something a traditional language is unlikely to be. Template code may look bad but in practice it's fairly resistant to people copying and pasting then playing with to get what they want.
The other way to go is just to optimise the heck out of the existing template system, with enough caching and hashing or run time compilation most things run quickly enough. Still, doing this is usually complex.
Old code unless bot eliminated (msg:stub for example) tends not to die.
Yup. Conspiracy theories and programming languages. Both can be fun.
-- geni