Recent Posts

I did some more tinkering with BlogMore yesterday, adding two new features. The first is one I've been considering adding for a wee while now.

For a large part of the lifetime of this blog I used Disqus to provide a comments section on every post. It was, as you'd imagine for a small personal blog, a pretty quiet thing; I'd get the odd comment from time to time but it wasn't significant. This worked well for the longest time, until Disqus decided that they were going to force adverts into your pages if you were using the free tier. Now, I'm fine with paying for tools I use, but I wasn't using Disqus enough to make the cost worth it. I'm also not opposed to a bit of subtle advertising to help cover costs either.

What Disqus did wasn't subtle. It was far from subtle. It was a horror show of the worst kind of sleazy advertising you can imagine.

So I removed it and called it a day on comments.

After the work on BlogMore was well under way I did start thinking about this problem again. Given how BlogMore is constructed, anyone using it could override a template and include whatever they want; with this in mind I looked at static-site-friendly comment options but nothing really stood out. Every solution seemed to either heavily rely on a third party service (see above for possible problems), self-hosting such a service (spinning up hosts and web servers and databases and stuff is the antithesis of using a static site generator to get stuff done easily), or some hacky use of a social media platform or other discussion venue that would require the reader jump through hoops that really looks like "go away, I don't want to hear from you".

So I concluded that it just wasn't worth the effort and I've done nothing with it.

Meanwhile: on occasion I have had people just email me about a post. Good old email, like in the good old days of the Internet. I kind of liked that. In fact I really liked that. So over the weekend, after receiving just such an email the other day, I decided I'd add a feature to BlogMore that provided just that: an invitation to send an email at the end of every post.

The configuration file now has two new properties that support this. The first is invite_comments. This is a boolean value that simply turns on or off the feature. The second is invite_comments_to. This should be set to an email address that the reader will be invited to direct their comment or question or whatever.

I've made the latter a little smart, in that it's actually a template, so that you can control the email address used per-post. This could be great for filtering, etc. Examples could be:

• blog-comment@example.com
• blog-comment-{year}{month}{day}@example.com
• {author}+comment@example.com

And so on. You get the idea.

Further to this there's also post frontmatter properties of the same name. In this case the frontmatter setting always overrides the configuration file setting, for that single post. Also the invite_comments_to frontmatter setting isn't a template -- it's being set for a single post so that didn't seem necessary. The point of the frontmatter is it gives the flexibility to turn the invite off for an individual post (or indeed turn it on if the global setting is for it to be off).

The effect of all of this is that, if the invitation setting is on and if there is an email address available, this little box will appear at the bottom of a post:

When the reader clicks on the link it should open their MUA of choice and pre-fill the to address, and should also pre-fill the subject with the title of the post they're emailing from.

The second addition is prompted by the final paragraph in the post announcing the previous release of BlogMore:

At some point in the future it might be interesting to take this even further and produce a map of interconnected posts; for now though I think this is enough.

Apparently "some time in the future" was the following day; because that also got added while I was hacking on the sofa. There's a new --with-graph command line option, and with_graph configuration file setting, that adds a Graph page to the top "menu" of the blog. The result looks something like this:

Given the nature of the graph and that the viewer is naturally going to want to explore, it can be toggled into a "full screen" (well, "mostly most of the page") mode too:

The graph itself (built using force-graph) can be explored in the ways you'd reasonably expect, allowing zooming, panning around, dragging nodes around to get a better view of things, and so on.

If you click on any of the nodes the graph will show you everything that's linked to it:

and if you click the node again it will take you to the post, tag archive or category archive, depending on what it is you are clicking on.

So far I'm finding this is working really well as yet another method of discovering posts and themes, etc; it's already helped me find some "under-used" tags that deserved to be added to posts to better connect things. I suspect the feature will need refining over time, especially from a cosmetic point of view, but the result feels very usable as it stands.

There is, obviously and understandably, a lot of conversation online about AI and coding and agents and all that stuff. Much of it I get, much of it I agree with, I share the vast majority of the concerns. The impact on people, the impact on society, the impact on the environment, the impact on security... there's a good list of things to worry us there.

The one that crops up a lot though, that I don't quite get, is the constant claim I see that at best AI tools produce bad code, and at worst they produce unworkable code. That really isn't my recent experience.

Sure, going back to 2023 or 2024, when I first started toying with these new chatbot things some folks were raving about, the output was laughable. I can remember spending some fun times trying to coax whatever version of ChatGPT was on the go at the time into writing workable code and being amused by just how bad it was.

Even back in October last year, when I first tried out the free Copilot Pro that GitHub had given me to play with, I tried to get it to build a Textual application for me and it was terrible. The code was bad, it didn't really know how to use Textual properly, the application I was trying to get it to write as a test barely worked. It was a disaster.

A month later, in November of last year, I had a second go and better success. That time the (still not released, perhaps one day) application I was building was Swift-based and worked really well, but I can't really comment on the quality of the code or how idiomatically correct the code is in respect to the type of application it is (it's a wee game that runs on iOS, iPadOS, macOS).

By the time I tried my first serious experiment things seemed to be a little different. The code actually wasn't bad. It wasn't good, it was far from good, but it wasn't bad. Also, because it was Python, I was in a good place to judge the code.

Since I've started working on BlogMore I've noticed issues such as:

• Lots of repetitive boilerplate code.
• Lots of magic numbers.
• Lots of magic strings.
• Functions with redundant and unused parameters.
• A default state of just adding more and more code to one file.
• A habit of writing least-effort-possible type hints.
• A habit of sometimes taking a hacky shortcut to solve a problem.
• A habit of sometimes over-engineering a solution to a problem.
• A weird obsession with importing inside functions.
• An occasional weird obsession with guarding some imports with TYPE_CHECKING to work around non-existent circular imports.
• An unwillingness to use newer Python capabilities (I've yet to see it make use of := without being prompted, for example).
• A tendency to write what I would consider less-elegant code over more-elegant code.

The list isn't exhaustive, of course. The point here is that, as I've reviewed the PRs¹, and read the code, I've seen things I wouldn't personally do. I've seen things I wouldn't personally write, I've seen things I've felt the need to push back on, I've seen things I've fully rejected and started over. Ultimately BlogMore isn't the code I would have written, but at the moment it is the application I would have written².

So, here's the thing: every time I see someone writing a negative toot or post or article or whatever, and they talk about how the code it produces is unworkable, I find myself wondering about how they formed this opinion. Are they just writing the piece for the audience they want? Are they writing the piece based on their experience from months to years back, when these tools did seem to still be laughably bad? Are they simply cynically generating the piece using an LLM to bait for engagement? When I see this particular aspect of such a post it's a bit of a red flag about where they're coming from, kind of like how you suddenly realise that someone who seems to speak with authority might be full of shit when they start to spout questionable "facts" on a subject you understand well.

But wait! What about that list of dodgy stuff I've seen while building BlogMore with Copilot? What about all the reading and reviewing I've had to do, and what about the other crimes against Python coding I can probably still find in the codebase? Surely that is evidence that these tools produce terrible, unworkable, unusable code?

I mean, okay, I suppose I could reach that conclusion if I'd had a massively atypical experience in the software development industry and had never had to review anyone else's code, or had never needed to work on someone else's legacy code. Is what I'm seeing out of Copilot something I'd consider ideal code? Of course not. Is it worse than some of the worst code I've had to deal with since I started coding for a living in 1989? Hell no!

From what I'm seeing right now I'm getting code whose quality is... fine. Mostly it does the job fine. Often it needs a bit of coaxing in the right direction. Sometimes it gets totally confused and goes down a rabbit hole which needs to just be blocked off and we start again. Occasionally it needs rewriting to do the same thing but in a more maintainable way.

All of which sounds very familiar. I've had times where that describes my code (and I would massively distrust anyone who says they've never had the same outcomes in their time writing code). For sure it describes code I've had to take over, maintain or review.

It's almost like it was trained on lots of code written by humans.

Meanwhile... not every instance of using these tools to get code done needs to be about writing actual code. More and more I'm finding Google Gemini (for example) to be a really handy coding buddy and faster "Google this shit 'cos I can't remember this exact thing I want to achieve". I'll ask, I'll almost always get a pretty good answer, and then I can generally take that snippet of code and implement it how I want.

I've seldom had to walk away from that sort of interaction because it was getting me nowhere.

All of which is to say: I remain concerned about a great many things in the AI space at the moment, but I'm also as equally suspicious of someone who just flatly says "and the code it produces just doesn't work". If that's part of an article or post I'm left with the feeling that the author put zero actual effort into forming their opinion, let alone actually writing it.

BlogMore has had a new release, bumping the version to v2.16.0. There are two main changes in this update, both coming from a single idea: internal back-links.

Where it makes sense, I always try and link posts in this blog to other related posts, but I've never really had a sense of how interconnected things are. So, the first new thing I added was a with_backlinks configuration option. This is off by default, but when turned on, will add a list of any referring posts to the bottom of a post.

Like some of the work I did in the stats page, this feels like another interesting method of discovering posts and related subjects within a blog.

Once this work was done, it seemed to make sense to use the link-gathering code to then get a sense of which posts are most often linked to within a blog, and so a table of most-linked posts has been added to the stats page.

This particular table will only appear in the stats if with_backlinks is set to true.

At some point in the future it might be interesting to take this even further and produce a map of interconnected posts; for now though I think this is enough.

When I'm writing documentation in Markdown I like, where possible, to mark up keys with the <kbd> tag. This was the reason for one of the updates to BlogMore: I'd not done any good default markup for <kbd> and the moment I realised, I knew I had to fix it.

Now that I'm writing more on this blog, and especially about coding, I'm mentioning keys pretty often (even more so given I'm doing a lot of tidying up of my Emacs Lisp packages). The thing is though: I find having to type out <kbd> and </kbd> kind of tedious, and it's something I mistype from time to time. I guess I could use some sort of HTML tag inserting tool or whatever, but I got to thinking that it would be handy if I could point an Emacs command at a particular sequence in a buffer and have it mark up the whole thing.

This resulted in a small bit of code I'm calling kbdify.el. It's pretty simple, if point is sat on some text that looks like this:

C-M-S-s-<up>

and I run kbdify I get this:

<kbd>C</kbd>-<kbd>M</kbd>-<kbd>S</kbd>-<kbd>s</kbd>-<kbd>&lt;up&gt;</kbd>

The result rendering as C-M-S-s-<up>.

I could probably take it a bit further, have it optionally work on a region and stuff like that, but even in its current simplistic form it's going to be loads quicker and a lot more accurate and will probably perfectly cover 99% of the times I need it. There is the issue that it's not going to handle something like M-x some-command RET in the way I might like, but then again some-command isn't a key. Like, does it make more sense to have:

M-x some-command RET

anyway? Personally I think this:

M-x some-command RET

probably makes more sense.

I think I'm good for now.

I've just made a small update to BlogMore. This fixes a minor cosmetic issue that's been bugging me for a while, but one that I kept forgetting to address. I noticed it again on a recent post. The issue is that if there are enough tags on a post that the collection of tags runs to a second line, there was no space between those lines.

Now, as of v2.15.0, there's a little bit of breathing room between those lines.

Much better.

When I'm working in Emacs I use the *scratch* buffer quite a bit. I find it especially useful if I'm working on some Emacs Lisp code, but I also find it handy as a place to drop something I want to retrieve soon, or a quick note that I want to refer back to soon; sometimes I even paste some text there and copy it back just to strip the formatting from it before using it elsewhere¹.

Because of this, for a long time, I carried a little function around that I had bound to M-s to quickly take me to the *scratch* buffer. Then, I think around the time I did the follow-up revamp of my Emacs configuration, I turned it into a little package for my own use called itch.el.

The command (itch-scratch-buffer) is simple enough: run it and I get switched to my *scratch* buffer. If I run it with a prefix argument it switches to *scratch* and resets the content back to the initial-scratch-message.

More recently I've found that I'm wanting a scratch buffer that is for writing Markdown. Like many folk I use it a lot for documentation, and of course I also use it for this blog. I also use it heavily for keeping notes in Obsidian². So, often, I find myself switching to a temporary buffer (*foo* or something), setting it to markdown-mode, and then writing what I need.

So yesterday I finally cracked and added itch-markdown-scratch-buffer. It's just like itch-scratch-buffer, only it creates a *scratch: Markdown* buffer, using the same clear-if-prefix rule.

So now I've got this bound to M-S-s and I can faff around just a little less when I want a Markdown scratchpad.

Back in the late 1990s, like plenty of people who were very online, I was a very avid user of Usenet. There were a few groups I was very active in, even a couple that I maintained a FAQ for. Being that active and wanting to help and answer questions, I was forever posting and pasting links to various resources. Given that I used Emacs to edit my posts¹, I eventually realised that I should come up with a tool that let me call on common URLs quickly.

So back in 1998 handyurl.el was born. It was a simple idea: have a file of URLs that I commonly refer to and let me quickly pick from one and paste it. This made for a useful tool and also gave me something to build given I was learning Emacs Lisp at the time.

For reasons I can't quite recall, some time later (the next year, by the looks of things), I wrote quickurl.el as a successor to handyurl.el. I honestly can't remember why this happened, I can't remember why I didn't just keep extending handyurl.el. But, anyway, quickurl.el did more and was more flexible, with built-in URL-grabbing and editing and so on.

Not that long later I got an email from the FSF asking if I might be willing to hand over copyright so that quickurl.el could become part of Emacs itself. I was, of course, delighted to do so.

Eventually quickurl.el was declared obsolete and, while it seems to still be shipped with Emacs, it's not documented or easy to discover.

In the deprecation notice in NEWS the suggestion is that the user should switch to one or more of 3 alternatives:

** The quickurl.el library is now obsolete.
Use 'abbrev', 'skeleton' or 'tempo' instead.

abbrev I know, the other two I've never noticed and don't know anything about.

Obviously, between quickurl.el being pulled into Emacs, and it being made obsolete, my use of it fell right off. I eventually stopped posting to and reading Usenet, I also stopped using mutt+Emacs as my mail client of choice, and so found myself seldom writing things that needed lots of links, in Emacs.

Until recently.

At the moment I'm finding that I'm wanting to write on my blog more and more, and doing that means I often want to include some common links, and I write my posts in Emacs using markdown-mode and with a little help from blogmore.el; the need to have an easy-to-pick-from common menu of URLs is back.

Driven by this I've made a point of using abbrev to initially solve this problem. This works, but I do have a problem: I keep forgetting what the abbreviations are. I find myself wanting to have a key binding that lets me at the very least completing-read the desired abbrev. So yesterday I quickly knocked up unabbrev.el.

It's simple, straightforward, small and does the job I needed. Doubtless there's something else out there that can do this sort of thing too, but part of the fun of Emacs (for me) is that I find I have a need and I can hack together some Lisp and get that problem solved.

I suppose what I should do is revive either handyurl.el or quickurl.el and tweak and update whichever, at the very least adding some sort of insert formatting facility that is sensitive to the underlying mode (because links in Markdown need a format different from links in HTML, etc).

For now though unabbrev.el is going to help my failing memory when I want to link a common resource.

As an aside, all of this does have me wonder about one thing: is the Free Software Foundation the place that code goes to die? Like, sure, of course I can make changes to quickurl.el and do my own thing with it, as long as I don't misrepresent the copyright status and maintain a compatible licence, etc; but there is this thing where, if Emacs doesn't want that code any more, if the FSF don't want that code any more, wouldn't it be nice if they'd sign it back over again?

I am tempted to drop them a line and see what the deal is. I did tag-ask on Mastodon but got no reply. Unfortunately though that account looks like the FSF treat Mastodon as a write-only resource.

Recently I've had an odd problem with Emacs: occasionally, and somewhat randomly, as I wrote code, and only when I wrote Emacs Lisp code, and only when working in emacs-lisp-mode, I'd find that the buffer I was working in would disappear. Not just fully disappear, but more like if I'd used quit-window. Worse still, once this started happening, it wouldn't go away unless I turned Emacs off and on again.

Very un-Emacs!

Normally this would happen when I'm in full flow on something, so I'd just restart Emacs and crack on with the thing I was writing; because of this I wasn't diagnosing what was actually going on.

Then, today, as I was writing require in some code, and kept seeing the buffer go away when I hit q, it dawned on me.

Recently, when I cleaned up expando.el, I added the ability to close the window with q.

--- a/expando.el
+++ b/expando.el
@@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ Pass LEVEL as 2 (or prefix a call with \\[universal-argument] and
   (let ((form (preceding-sexp)))
     (with-current-buffer-window "*Expando Macro*" nil nil
       (emacs-lisp-mode)
-      (pp (funcall (expando--expander level) form)))))
+      (local-set-key (kbd "q") #'quit-window)
+      (pp (funcall (expando--expander level) form)))))

 (provide 'expando)

So, after opening a window for the purposes of displaying the expanded macro, switch to emacs-lisp-mode, locally set the binding so q will call on quit-window, and I'm all good.

Except... not, as it turns out.

To quote from the documentation for local-set-key:

The binding goes in the current buffer’s local map, which in most cases is shared with all other buffers in the same major mode.

D'oh!

Point being, any time I used expando-macro, I was changing the meaning of q in the keyboard map for emacs-lisp-mode. :-/

And so v1.6 of expando.el is now a thing, in which I introduce a derived mode of emacs-lisp-mode and set q in its keyboard map. In fact, I keep the keyboard map nice and simple.

(defvar expando-view-mode-map
  (let ((map (make-sparse-keymap)))
    (define-key map (kbd "q") #'quit-window)
    map)
  "Mode map for `expando-view-mode'.")

(define-derived-mode expando-view-mode emacs-lisp-mode "expando"
  "Major mode for viewing expanded macros.

The key bindings for `expando-view-mode' are:

\\{expando-view-mode-map}")

From now on I should be able to code in full flow state without the worry that my window will disappear at any given moment...

Another wee update to blogmore.el, with a bump to v4.2.

After adding the webp helper command the other day, something about it has been bothering me. While the command is there as a simple helper if I want to change an individual image to webp -- so it's not intended to be a general-purpose tool -- it felt "wrong" that it did this one specific thing.

So I've changed it up and now, rather than being a command that changes an image's filename so that it has a webp extension, it now cycles through a small range of different image formats. Specifically it goes jpeg to png to gif to webp.

With this change in place I can position point on an image in the Markdown of a post and keep running the command to cycle the extension through the different options. I suppose at some point it might make sense to turn this into something that actually converts the image itself, but this is about going back and editing key posts when I change their image formats.

Another change is to the code that slugs the title of a post to make the Markdown file name. I ran into the motivating issue yesterday when posting some images on my photoblog. I had a title with an apostrophe in it, which meant that it went from something like Dave's Test (as the title) to dave-s-test (as the slug). While the slug doesn't really matter, this felt sort of messy; I would prefer that it came out as daves-test.

Given that wish, I modified blogmore-slug so that it strips ' and " before doing the conversion of non-alphanumeric characters to -. While doing this, for the sake of completeness, I did a simple attempt at removing accents from some characters too. So now the slugs come out a little tidier still.

(blogmore-slug "That's Café Ëmacs")
"thats-cafe-emacs"

The slug function has been the perfect use for an Emacs Lisp function I've never used before: thread-last. It's not like I've been avoiding it, it's just more a case of I've never quite felt it was worthwhile using until now. Thanks to it the body of blogmore-slug looks like this:

(thread-last
  title
  downcase
  ucs-normalize-NFKD-string
  (seq-filter (lambda (char) (or (< char #x300) (> char #x36F))))
  concat
  (replace-regexp-in-string (rx (+ (any "'\""))) "")
  (replace-regexp-in-string (rx (+ (not (any "0-9a-z")))) "-")
  (replace-regexp-in-string (rx (or (seq bol "-") (seq "-" eol))) ""))

rather than something like this:

(replace-regexp-in-string
 (rx (or (seq bol "-") (seq "-" eol))) ""
 (replace-regexp-in-string
  (rx (+ (not (any "0-9a-z")))) "-"
  (replace-regexp-in-string
   (rx (+ (any "'\""))) ""
   (concat
    (seq-filter
     (lambda (char)
       (or (< char #x300) (> char #x36F)))
     (ucs-normalize-NFKD-string
      (downcase title)))))))

Given that making the slug is very much a "pipeline" of functions, the former looks far more readable and feels more maintainable than the latter.

I'm sat on the sofa, MacBook perched on my lap, going over some photos and generally feeling pretty tired in a really satisfying way.

We've just had a brief weekend run to one of my favourite places on the planet, back in the county I was born in: Whitby.

The plan for the weekend, as it always is when we do a run down there, was to head down, wander around town and do some vague tourist-type things in the afternoon/evening, wake up early in the morning, head to the east beach and go fossil hunting.

Neither of us are fossil-hunting experts, but it's something we like to try and do at least once a year. For me it's a bonus that it's in Whitby as that's a place I just never get bored of. Its connection with all things Gothic and photographic is a constant draw for me.

As for the hunt itself: we managed to find a good few fossils, some being easily uncovered on the beach, some being found as ready-to-pick-up fragments, and some deeply-embedded in nodules that we've brought home to extract at a later date.

Backpacks came off the beach heavier than they went on.

We were pretty lucky with the weather for the trip. While we saw some heavy rain while walking around on Saturday evening (which was enjoyable anyway as the skies were pretty dramatic for it, and we got a pretty neat rainbow as the reward for the wee soaking), Sunday was cool but sunny all the time we were on the hunt. The tide was very much in our favour too (although we'd planned it that way, of course) with low tide being around noon.

We did manage to cut it fine getting back off the beach though. This is a thing you have to watch out for while on the hunt there. While we had plenty of sand/rock to be walking around on where we were hunting, by the time we headed back to the slipway back off the beach the tide was up enough that we had to hop over a crashing wave or two. That part of the beach can be misleading so it's something you do have to watch out for.

So, like I said: I'm happy-knackered on the sofa and satisfied after a fun weekend away. We keep promising ourselves that we will hunt other spots on the North Yorkshire coast, and probably even hunt other parts of the UK, but Whitby is an easy drive and a fun place to just hang out.

We'll be back.