Definition: Pure Tiddler and Impure Tiddler

#1

In creating contents for lengthy long tiddler, one can create a tiddler containing whole the material without transclusion and dynamic generation of any kind. The other solution is to create complex tiddler with many wikitext scripts to dynamically produce contents. Each has pros and cons.

Definition

  • Pure tiddler: is a tiddler contains only basic wikitex and no transclusion

    • Pure tiddler always shows the same content. It does not depend on any state, or data, change during the life of a wiki contains this tiddler.
    • They do not have any side effects
    • They can be found in standard search, when one search for content

  • Impure Tiddler: is kind of the opposite of a pure one

    • They have contents generated dynamically and may be affected with some state variable
    • Impure tiddler doesn’t predictably produce the same result.
    • They may cause side-effects.

  • Master Tiddler: is an impure tiddler, its contents created by dynamic transclusion

    • Master created from contents of pure tiddler by transclusion
    • Master tiddler may not appear in standard search because they really have no content, but get their contents from other tiddler

Remarks:

  1. Note: This discussion related to content creation in Tiddlywiki dealing with lengthy, long contents
  2. Note: Creating a linear structured text like a Novel, a Thesis, an Essay, is different from simple note taking
  3. Question: what do you think about these definitions? What is your recommendation for creating long lengthy text?
  4. What name do you propose for length, long text?

Important Note: we know a novel is NOT a single tiddler, here a long tiddler is a section and a part of text cannot be divided more into subsection!

Using textareas instead of inputs for fields?
#2

Example of Pure Tiddler

Title: Steve Jobs Quote
Text:

Our time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.
Don’t be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of 
other people’s thinking.

Example of Impure Tiddler

Title: Albert Einstein Quote
Text:

Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.
{{Some Tiddler}}

Example of Master Tiddler

Title: Life Quote
Text:

<$list filter="[tag[life-quotes]]">
<$transclude mode=block/>
</$list>

Note when we search, what we may find!

#3

I like “pure tiddler”. I put forward “independent” and “static” as alternatives.

But “impure” doesn’t evoke the right mental image for me. I like “mixed tiddler” more because it reminds me of mixed fractions.

“Master tiddler” is great. :smiley:

What do you think a stream (streams plugin) would fall under, master tiddlers or impure tiddlers? While the the stream root tiddler functions like your definition of a master tiddler, it can hold content in its text field if the user wants to.

In my case, I’ll flesh out the definition of a term, say, Bird, inside the text field of the stream root tiddler. Then I’ll make child nodes under it for the kinds of Birds. Does this count as a master or an impure tiddler?

Other stream users call their streams “compound tiddlers”.

I use a mix of all three kinds of tiddlers. Personally, pure tiddlers are necessary. Writing many paragraphs needs a proper text editor. (Streams is hard for prose) I use impure tiddlers when I synthesize my notes and transcluding term definitions. I recently used master tiddlers for listing tiddlers about basic theorems (which are short, self-sufficient notes)

#4

Mohammad

Very interesting post.

I like it because it illustrates that TW is something special in how it works.

Getting to the point of “Definition”: Are your terms correct enough?

I need think about that a bit longer.

Best wishes
TT

#5

Hi Mohammad

It would be helpful to have some terminology to describe tiddlers with different dynamics, so kudos to you for bringing up this issue.

Pure and impure are words that carry moral or judgmental overtones, as if one is better than the other.

My vote, for what it’s worth, would be with

  1. Changing pure tiddlers to Simple tiddlers. I think this is easy to grasp without needing explanation.

  2. Changing impure tiddlers to Complex tiddlers as a short phrase to contast with ‘simple’ tiddlers. (a fun alternative might be transcludlers! :slight_smile: ). Or simply ‘Tiddlers with transclusions’.

  3. The politically correct enviroment is moving towards eliminating the use of ‘master’ because of its association with slavery, which in the United States is tied to race. I have mixed feelings about jettison longstanding language, but can appreciate the desire to be sensitive. So maybe it isn’t the time to introduce master tiddler as a new term. Index tiddlers is an alternative that describes what is happening - a tiddler that indexes other tiddlers with a list filter. So my vote would be for that.

I was originally going to suggest ‘independent’ and ‘dependent’ tiddlers. But that creates a conceptual problem: in grammar, the dependent clauses are branches inserted or attached to the main clause. But in creating an article with transclusion, the transcluded tiddlers are usually the short pieces that are inserted or attached to the main article. So to call the main article tiddler a ‘dependent’ tiddler turns things upside down and is probably not the way to go, it would be confusing language.

#6

@Mohammad I think your definitions are fine. Here is how I think of tiddlers:

Atomic tiddler (atom)

Molecular tiddler (molecule)

Compound tiddler (consumer)

I also think of fields as atomic (depending on my particular focus at the time).

1 Like
#7

Ciao @Mohammad, immediately after my post I saw @DaveGifford weigh in … Rather than …

1 - Pure
2 - Impure
3 - Master

Instead, @DaveGifford suggested …

1 - Simple
2 - Complex
3 - Index

I DO think Dave’s suggestion might well do well as a basic lingo for describing how TW works.

Just a comment
TT

#8

@Mohammad I also think that @CodaCoder’s take on it interesting and relevant. Interesting in a different way.

Why? I often think we need “terms” no one else uses.
Why? Because we need to point to the uniqueness of TW and terms you rarely see used with other online-software has great merit and @CodaCoder is very much that way …

Just reflecting on what I’m seeing here :slight_smile:
TT

#9

Thank you all. When writing documentation or explaining TW to others these terminology are important!

While in programming world pure function is a well defined term, but as most TW users are non-programmer, I think what suggested by @DaveGifford is simpler and semantic here!

I am only not sure if Index and complex tiddlers are good terms here or not! In Microsoft Word, master document is a document include all chapter document into one!

So, please vote for

  • Simple tiddler (e.g pure tiddler)
  • Complex tiddler (e.g. impure tiddler )
  • Index tiddler (e.g. master tiddler)

I will later edit the original post while you also can edit and improve it!

@CodaCoder - I love your terminology, chemists/chemical engineers would delight to use this terminology!

#10

FYI @Mohammad & @DaveGifford, purely linguistically, Index, in English, is clear. But there is a something ambiguous with Complexity in that it implies “who knows what?” What is it’s scope?

In the OP (“impure”) simply means a tiddler with a basic translusion …

Is that “Complex?” My point is: it is actually not so complex!

Just a comment
TT

#11

This process of establishing terminology is very interesting to me. TiddlyWiki itself introduces a handful of neologisms (“tiddler”, “story river”,“shadow tiddler” etc), but it makes sense that the community needs to evolve terminology that stems not from the mechanisms of TiddlyWiki but from the emerging usages and practices shared in the community.

The problem with terms like “pure”, “simple” or “complex” is that they are essentially relative adjectives, and don’t provide much concrete meaning.

Adjectives with stronger meanings like “composite tiddler”, “compound tiddler” or even “patchwork tiddler” might be more helpful. Short phrases like that can’t be entirely self-explanatory, but are more evocative.

I think what the OP calls a “master tiddler” is what we call a “template tiddler” in the docs.

2 Likes
#13

Yes @TiddlyTweeter I agree that Complex tiddlers is not as clear as “Tiddler with transclusions” which is a mouthful, but is much clearer.

The term “Complex tiddler” isn’t my favorite, either, because it is a tradeoff. It sacrifices a some clarity in order to gain brevity, to be the opposite of ‘simple’, and communicate that there is more than one type of content in the tiddler.

A complex or impure tiddler contains complex (more than one type of) content, but that content is often not too complicated, as you point out. Here there is a slight difference between complex and complicated. Though often we use the two words interchangeably.

IMHO Simple tiddlers vs tiddlers with transclusion would be the best if transparent clarity is crucial. Simple vs complex would be best if we are willing to trade a little clarity to make the two terms briefer and more parallel.

This is a fun discussion, I am enjoying everyone’s comments.

1 Like
#14

oooh just saw Jeremy’s post after posting myself.

I think simple still communicates well.

But I think composite is a big improvement over complex. Much better.

I have no strong opinion regarding index vs template tiddlers. But the term template tiddler, to me, communicates that the tiddler will be used to create other tiddlers with the same characteristics. And Mohammad was talking rather about tiddlers that have list filters in them to display transclusions as list items. Seems like two different ideas to me.

1 Like
#15

Count my vote for composite! Agreed that a tiddler with transclusions isn’t immediately complex.

But I’m not so sure about “simple”. I understand that it comes from English grammar. But Mohammad said he was referring to long texts, and for me, “simple” and “atomic” are too close to “short”. An essay inside a single tiddler would be a pure tiddler, but it would be weird to call it “atomic”.

I only remember now that I do use the word “index” to refer to my master tiddlers. :laughing: So I also vote for “index” tiddlers over “master” tiddlers. “Index” is a tool to group tiddlers, while “master” has the idea of hierarchy embedded in it.

Edit: On second thought, I think there are two kinds of grouping/master tiddlers.

For me, index tiddlers group atomic/short self-sufficient notes together. I have a wiki for notes on some short stories. An index tiddler lists instances of a certain trope across stories. Every instance is a tiddler. The index tiddler indexes notes, but those notes can be indexed by other index tiddlers.

Then there’s the master tiddler that weaves paragraphs together to form a long text. I write the outline of an essay with Streams, I overwrite every node with coherent sentences, then I join them together on a separate tiddler. It makes sense to call this tiddler a “master” tiddler because it does have a hierarchy. It doesn’t make sense to call it an index tiddler because its children belong to the master tiddler.

#16

@sull-vitsy - I support your idea! as index page, index file has well established meaning when publish a book, paper, etc.

#17

QED.

What we (the discourse community of Tiddlywiki) have, is a shared language (aka buzz words) which are used in an echo chamber of our own making. And as Jeremy intimated, it’s all derived from the mechanics of TW.

That, is a barrier to entry for the masses at large (possibly one of many).

And that, is a shame.

Kudos to @Mohammad for exposing our soiled underwear.

1 Like
#18

I don’t get it… what is wrong with simply “tiddler without transclusions” vs “tiddler with transclusions” which is totally unambiguous?

#19

It’s hard to say what’s wrong, but what I can say is, it’s unreasonable – unreasonable in the sense that it cannot be reasoned about with/to a 12 year old with little to no experience of TiddlyWiki. And without reasonable (able to be reasoned with) language, it’s difficult to progress.

If that 12 year old is your target audience (she should be) then (as the fabled Irishman would say) “I wouldn’t start from there”.

#20

@sull-vitsy has agood point. Perhaps flat vs composite would be better than simple vs composite.

#21

Mat, what you say is description, what are discussing is name! So there is difference between describing a thing versus calling/naming a thing!