Re: A programming wiki?




//\\\\o//\\\\annabee wrote:
My point is this: unless this programming wiki will do better than
say, CVS, I don't see any point in making it.

I do not know CVS. But, tell you this.
if cvs is more work, then :

1. enter url, press enter
2. click click click, project
3. click click - Function SetRect
4. rewrite this routine
5. press compile.

If it takes more then 10-20 seconds to produce the new exefile, under CVS,

As always, compilation time depends on source file size.

Already, there are tons
of tools avaliable that are standard in any modern developer team.
Add in some $$ from a company, and you can have standard
state-of-the-art technology (whatever that is for Version Control...
probably not CVS :-p)

State of the art, in programming tools, is what RosAsmers call laughing
"stock". :) not to be "uber" arrogant or anything. Its just one of the
strange facts of life.

....What?

Also of course, avoiding the sure problem of 20 people compiling
all the same code on the same server instead of on their home
computers... mentioned in a different message.

compilation will happen locally. You just download the sourcefiles, of the
version you adopted, in your browser, and the browser plugin compiles it
for you. You dont have to burn back to the server, until you choose to, of
course.

It would be easier (requiring no cooperation from compiler writers) to
compile on the server.

* A malicious user can read code, change it, and leave.
totally anonymously.

Code is visible to all, so you read it. If it looks ok, and seems to
perform better, or add features that you want, you upgrade. If you dont
understand it, you dont risk loosing any data, as its all stored online
anyway. And theres no forced upgrade.
The server will keep track of all the routines that changed in the last
modification.

That's where you use versioning! You can just roll it back to the
pre-vandalism version.

So there is some give-and-take here. Also, the fact
that a contributor needs to read/learn a LOT before he can
really contribute well removes a key advantage of a wiki.
Contributions from the "common man".

I guess in this case we call it the "common" programmer. Theres no reason
why there can not be lightweight example projects in there, for beginners
with tutorials and all. For each language. Also, new versions by better
programmers to learn from. And btw, most of an application are
"commonplace" anyway. Only the key parts are usually advanced stuff. E.g
for the encryption program mentioned above, creating the userinterface is
what takes time, while the encryption routine is what is important. But
without a easy to use userinterface, the encryption programmer is likly to
be amoung the few guys to benefit from it.

The only point of such a thing, would be to get rid of any download,
install, upgrade cycle, and make your project accessible from any machine
having a browser. Plus the ability to work in your fields of interesst,
and to contibute where you want to. It must be a streamlined nonspamming
efficient and intelligent service. A masterpiece of a work, enabling
cooperation across the net, that dont waste your time. If it could be made
to be more efficent then having all theese diffrent tools, which I belive
it could.. then I cant see how it could become a miss in the GPL community
at least.

I can see of course that creating such a thing would be a terrible
challenge. But I think that if at all possible, and if succeeding at the
userfriendlyness, and the efficiency of use, that imo _must_ be there,
then it could become an unparallelled success. I can also see some
problems with it, like 2 million monkeys making modifications without any
basis.... So but this could be solved maybe by approving project
maintainers, by intermediate versions, voting, testing etc. It perfectly
possible to aprove people anonymously. You may upgrade rights by way of
contributions. If user1002 has made no useful contribution, he is
restricted to work on the less significant projects, and when his
contribution rate has climbed over some amount, he gets a status, so that
he can contribute where he wants to. If he keeps posting 200 modifications
a day, then take care of him.... Some kind of peerevaluation or something.
Another point is that such a system would centralize many useful
applications, and be a resource for seeing whats out there and many other
things. Just like sourceforge is today, allthough _much_ faster, better,
intelligent.

We all do all of this allready. We read forums, here and there, what other
programmers do. They post examples, they post links, we download a
zipfiles and testout their code. We learn a little here, a little there.
We all do this now. In addition, we download our compilers of choise,
upgrade them, and we create a project, and we then upload it to our
webspaces and post links on forums to make it public. I just think it
could be more efficient to integrate it all into some multitool like this.

Several serious problems exists. How to convince the compiler authors to
contribute. Without compilers, you cannot compile. How to make it
efficient without drowning in useless contributions. Lots of problems to
solve. But if they could be solved, I am pretty sure it could have
something in it.

--Dragontamer

.