Re: Guix Workflow Language ?

[zimoun]

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