On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 12:54:01 PM UTC+2, Mat wrote: > > Disregarding the irony of the very title: > > In another thread someone requested more attention to TiddlyWiki > Classic/TWC/TW2, i.e the predecessor to TW5. To which I replied: > > I don't get why NEW attention should be brought to TWC which is, after >> all, a system we've advanced from. Sure, it works and it's great, but there >> has been no development for it in almost a decade. > > Hooow, ... You are really wrong here!
Yakov does a really great job in maintaining and updating <https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/TiddlyWiki> TWclassic. The last commit is 14 days ago. The last version is 2.9.2 from Feb. 2019. ... Sure the development is slower than TW5 but I think it is still a viable member in the TW ecosystem. There have been some problems with the save mechanism in the past, because of browser changes. Some of them also needed some action on TWc side. > It seems mostly that people who use it do so because they didn't muster up >> the effort to make the transition. Yes, I know this is not 100% the case >> because TWC is more performant in some aspects but the same can probably be >> said of Windows 95 or whatever. We've moved on, for good reasons, and we >> should not "trick" people into spending time on that old technology. There >> is recurring confusion for newcomers where they found some plugin or >> information that strangely "doesn't work". >> Let TWC fade out to be a nostalgic memory that is still *beautiful *but >> that we shouldn't *dwell *on. > > I wouldn't start a new wiki with TWc but I also have some "note wikis" that are still TWc. I don't see a reason to change a working system. -mario -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/34af5ff6-0b36-4ddf-84c3-692404aee677%40googlegroups.com.
