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
