Q: Which software (already) was inspired by and/or shaped by The TiddlyWiki?
Explanans or Explanandums are both acceptable.
Let’s map The TW history of influence (by & of / bye & off) for fun.
It is about time for a RECKONING.
Be relaxed in the Café ambiance …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYPVQccHhAQ.
TT
Twine was I think TW inspired, possibly even a plugin. You can find some conversations in the old Google group with twinery creator. (I always like to think it’s Tiddly Wiki Interactive Narative Engine but I’m just making that up).
@Ste_W It certainly was. @Maans shared a danish translated version with me, shortly after I started using Tiddlywiki, classic it was. Shortly after that, twine changed and did no longer use Tiddlywiki.
Tiddlytwine was on tiddlyspace.com, and tiddlyspace.gir.dk
Maans write about it https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/IZn1fXYM7QE/m/slrWDeBI2HUJ
Logseq was, as they state it at their blog:
Logseq is hugely inspired by Roam Research, Org Mode, Tiddlywiki and Workflowy.
Let’s keep this going on yet …
FEATHER WIKI — https://feather.wiki/
Feather Wiki is a lightning fast infinitely extensible tool for creating personal non-linear notebooks, databases, and wikis that is entirely self-contained, runs in your browser, and is only 58 kilobytes in size.
It was created to be like TiddlyWiki but with the smallest file size possible …
Note: It is SO convergent on Saving Principles with the TW approach (“Quine thyself”) it can be, and is, often hosted on Tiddlyhost.
… So … what else was inspired by and/or shaped by The TiddlyWiki?
Also Moka
While not explicitly mentioning Tiddlywiki as an inspiration, they claim that:
Moka is a small wiki quine self contained in a single html file. You can store this file on your computer, host it on a server, or put it on a USB stick.
Interesting. Looks nice, small, clean.
Just had a look at Moka today.
This is a very cute and interesting tool.
I quite like the multi-pane layout. I actually use Mentat on TW for this kind of possibility.
I can totally see Moka as a gateway to TiddlyWiki. For example, I’d totally see it as the first technology introduced in a course about Web literacy (the real kind). I’d be happy to discuss how you’d see possible uses of the tool. (e.g. @Offray, @stevesuny),
Right.
I lacked time to test it fully but can hazard some initial comments …
1 — It looks like is would be trivial in TW to create an Export Filter to directly create Mokas (pre-populated with text tiddler content). That might be useful for publishing a near static webpage—though with useful minimal JS.
2 — It is interesting to look at it’s simple architecture and very small size which might be useful for simple “page” layouts where you don’t, in publishing, need all of TW’s bells and whistles.
3 — It is also interesting to compare to Feather Wiki — Moka is even simpler.
Thoughts
TT
I wrote a web page. It is a small html quine demo.
a microblog
a outline add to table
Right now it has tiddlydesktop save, tiddlystow save, and file save implemented.
I can’t write a tiddlyhost yet as well as a ios qunie app implementation.
Moka seems interesting. But because I don’t know about it, I’ll rather describe how we use the tools over here, so you can find if you can do something similar with Moka.
In my case, I try a project/problem/context based learning. So we introduce tools to enhance, via hypertext, a reading/writing ecosystem that has been pretty limited so far by word processors and social media. From that premise we use different tools according to the context: HedgeDoc for quick workshop/class notes during the sessions, Hypothesis for collective annotated reading, TiddlyWiki (using TiddlyHost) to (re)organize and to (re)structure the information and each learner develops his/her own public repository, using Fossil and metatools like Grafoscopio and TiddlyWikiPharo bridge all this workflow together, as we learn how to extend such metatools to deal with friction points in the workflow.
This year we’re going to introduce mdBook, as it’s focused on documentation workflows that are pretty similar to what we do, while providing the static site counterpart of our dynamic workflows and without requiring conversions from one Markdown variant to WikiText. And later I would like to experiment with HastyScribe, as its syntax and semantics are closer to the complete hypertext pragmatics that we experience with TW, including transclusion and macros (that are kind of “parametrized transclusion”, with repeating and changing parts).
At some point, I would like to have a more integrated workflow and (meta)tools, with less format/data translation between them and bridging better dynamic/static, individual/collective, content/functionality, online/offline. It is on that context, where I would introduce a new tool, that may bridge/replace some of them in our toolkit (in that context I see Moka more like redundancy that a replacement). I will elaborate more about it in this very thread.
Cheers,
I have two tools that are shaped by TiddlyWiki, one current and other in the future.
The current one is TiddlyWikiPharo and, as its name tells, bridges two of my favorite metatools: Pharo Smalltalk and TiddlyWiki, making the second one programmable from the first one (I have shared several examples in this forum).
The future one has the working name of Cardumem, and, as explained in that link, it would be a reimagining of TiddlyWiki, but instead of being done client side in JavaScript, it would be made server side in Lua/YueScript, using hypermedia systems to bring similar UI interactivity, while providing a more portable Domain Specific Language to bridge wiki content/functionality creation and help with other bridges in my previous response.
Moka removes the sidebar and story river. The user interface is clean. It doesn’t look at all different from a normal website. Readers visiting the site for the first time will not be confused or surprised. And the software size of Moka is very small, only 20k.
I made a server-side software of moka by hand.