[00:05:43] [[m:Abstract Wikipedia/Function model]] might be a place to start (re @Nikhil: Creating zobject at http://localhost:8080/wiki/createZObject [00:05:43] [00:05:45] Don't know about Zobject types that's why I am asking for some doc...) [00:06:32] I'd point to examples on the current Wikifunctions beta, but it is currently down after the recent cloud services outage [00:47:00] If you use "string" (Z6) as a type, and then enter some content ("Hello world"), can you then publish? [05:08:11] yup, I am able to publish. Actually, everything is going right. The problem is that I don't know how to play around with wiki function and this is the only issue.... [05:32:50] When you guys are most active? Like my timezone is UTC+05:30. [05:33:56] Many of us are eleven to fourteen hours behind you [05:34:31] I'm in US West Coast time, so usually UTC-8 [05:35:24] I guess the problem is that an empty installation comes with such little content [05:36:12] My suggestion is usually to try to create the negation function, which takes one boolean input and returns one boolean output [05:36:29] And then use the beta to peek on how it's done [05:36:49] any way this can be restarted? (re @mahir256: I'd point to examples on the current Wikifunctions beta, but it is currently down after the recent cloud services outage) [05:41:39] I think they're still fixing it still? Sorry for that [05:58:07] I looked into this not long ago, and the numbers don't bear that out. There's a large and vibrant community of Lua developers across many different projects. I think Wikifunctions could help it grow considerably. As far as "only using Lua": what we actually wrote (assuming you're referring to the Google.org fellows evaluation) is that "Wikifunctions can provide localized, graphic [05:58:07] al user interfaces that generate Lua code behind the scenes (see Blockly, for example). Lua can also be used as a “transpilation” target for text-based programming languages...As an intermediate representation, Lua would be far more efficient and robust than an ad-hoc function composition language." (re @Nikki: I find it strange that anyone would recommend only using lua. the [05:58:09] thing that seems to come up every time people mention modules ...) [06:11:03] That said: I respect the the decision of the Abstract Wikipedia team not to go ahead with our recommendations, I don't anticipate that changing, and I understand the rationale. So I don't want to relitigate any of it again. I just wanted to correct what seemed like a serious misrepresentation of what we wrote. (Assuming you were indeed referring to the evaluation. If not, I apologize!) [10:16:01] are the numbers available somewhere? I only have anecdotal evidence but it's something I've heard over and over, and when I look at the history of modules myself, I usually find they're almost exclusively edited by a single person (re @olivneh: I looked into this not long ago, and the numbers don't bear that out. There's a large and vibrant community of Lua developers ac...) [10:20:07] I just took a look at the first one to come to mind, module:information on commons, the module that is used for the information page on almost all commons files - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Information&action=history - and the edits are almost all by one editor, plus some edits by a second editor which were reverted by a third editor, a fourth editor [10:20:07] changing one word, and a fifth editor being someone who works for wmf adjusting the html in the module [10:30:41] I've also seen people from wikipedia communities having to get help from editors on another project (e.g. enwiki or wikidata) because there are no local editors who understand lua... and while it's great to see cross-wiki cooperation, it means only those who can communicate well enough in english or maybe french can get help [10:32:16] also do the numbers take into account that modules are frequently copied and pasted from other wikis without any understanding of how they work? [10:32:47] Exactly (re @Nikki: I've also seen people from wikipedia communities having to get help from editors on another project (e.g. enwiki or wikidata) be...) [10:32:58] I think this applies to most open source software as well. (re @Nikki: are the numbers available somewhere? I only have anecdotal evidence but it's something I've heard over and over, and when I look...) [10:33:01] "Community" here could also mean that people are working with similar tools and exchanging about them rather than working on the same thing directly.