11–20 of 112 posts
Jumping ahead, I want a plugin that automatically applies "standard" volume to mass conversions for me. E.g. 1 C whole wheat flour is 5.5 oz (or 150 g). This is walking the line of laziness (why don't I just look them up myself), but it sounds great. Maybe I can combine the web server with a customized GNU units. I don't love the % either. Fun stuff, nice creation!
> Slowly add @milk{4%cup} [- TODO change units to litres -], keep mixing No! Handle units! @milk{4%cup} should be trivially convertible to liters and configured by the user. For harder conversions (volume to mass) keeping a list of ingredients and their densities (configurable of course) would be extremely useful. On that subject, being able to specify a recipe in terms of ratios and then automatically convert it to…
Eh, I've tried both and I have to disagree. Pouring milk or oil may be easier with the scale because you have very precise control over the flow rate, but for flour and other dry goods it's far easier to scoop, scrape, and dump a cup than it is to add a bit at a time while avoiding the sudden avalanches that inevitably start as things loosen up.
Jumping ahead, I want a plugin that automatically applies "standard" volume to mass conversions for me. E.g. 1 C whole wheat flour is 5.5 oz (or 150 g). This is walking the line of laziness (why don't I just look them up myself), but it sounds great. Maybe I can combine the web server with a customized GNU units. I don't love the % either. Fun stuff, nice creation!
But 1 C of flour is 120 g
This is interesting though perhaps a bit over-engineered. I'd probably find myself less motivated to simply type something out to recipe.txt vs. manage all this but CookCLI does open up some interesting possibilities. The first thing that came to mind would be that it'd be cool if CookCLI could "halve" recipes automatically. Say you had a recipe for 12 muffins but you only wanted to make 6 or 4, it could automaticall…
>My other piece of feedback is the overloading of {} for ending multi-word ingredient seems a bit off. It's more syntax but I'd still rather have something dedicated for that purpose eg. @(ground black pepper) Yep, or just use the same tag marker at the end of the multi-word thing: #pot, #pressure cooker#, @onions, @ground black pepper@.
> Slowly add @milk{4%cup} [- TODO change units to litres -], keep mixing No! Handle units! @milk{4%cup} should be trivially convertible to liters and configured by the user. For harder conversions (volume to mass) keeping a list of ingredients and their densities (configurable of course) would be extremely useful. On that subject, being able to specify a recipe in terms of ratios and then automatically convert it to…
> Because measuring by volume isn't easier in 2023 than placing your mixing bowl on a kitchen scale and balancing everything to the mass of your butter and eggs. Eh, I've tried both and I have to disagree. Pouring milk or oil may be easier with the scale because you have very precise control over the flow rate, but for flour and other dry goods it's far easier to scoop, scrape, and dump a cup than it is to add a bit…
Pretty much every recipe written since literally the 1890s / Fannie Farmer already has pulled out ingredients and quantities into their own separate section from steps. To use cooklang, it appears that I have to rewrite recipes to include ingredients inline. No other recipes tend to use this style, because it is harder to read. If I write recipes in cooklang, the plain text of the recipes is harder to understand with…
This was my initial thought too - ChatGtp to the rescue: https://sharegpt.com/c/ivxamU9
I think this would be really cool to store the recipes one has tried and likes locally.
As much as I like the convenience, it's a double edged sword - we are removing the incentive of recipe authors to share.
The recipe credit: https://www.isabeleats.com/mexican-slow-cooker-pork-carnitas...
Pretty much every recipe written since literally the 1890s / Fannie Farmer already has pulled out ingredients and quantities into their own separate section from steps. To use cooklang, it appears that I have to rewrite recipes to include ingredients inline. No other recipes tend to use this style, because it is harder to read. If I write recipes in cooklang, the plain text of the recipes is harder to understand with…
> To use cooklang, it appears that I have to rewrite recipes to include ingredients inline. No other recipes tend to use this style, because it is harder to read. I don't understand. Recipes absolutely include ingredients inline, because unless your recipe is a single ingredient you would need to mention the name of the ingredients that step uses. The option to include measurements with the ingredient is also importa…
Sure some recipes require the same ingredient in different steps. Why optimize for an edge case and making the default case harder? It's solved "take half the butter..." and "with 100g of the sugar... Pour the rest of the sugar..." works well for the 2% of recipes you need this in.
Pretty much every recipe written since literally the 1890s / Fannie Farmer already has pulled out ingredients and quantities into their own separate section from steps. To use cooklang, it appears that I have to rewrite recipes to include ingredients inline. No other recipes tend to use this style, because it is harder to read. If I write recipes in cooklang, the plain text of the recipes is harder to understand with…
See for example https://www.cookingforengineers.com/recipe/36/Meat-Lasagna
Then finally you reach the footer and click on https://github.com/cooklang, then you see it has a bunch of cooklang libraries, e.g., TypeScript, python, C, etc.!
It even has a VSCode syntax highlighting package!
I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the project. It’s more than a markup language, cooklang seems to be an entire ecosystem.