Jeremy Ruston wrote: (My emphasis)
> ... right now the goal for the core is for it to contain not the bare > minimum possible functionality, but rather the functionality that has the > *potential > to be universally useful*. That broader criteria means that the core > itself is sufficient for a lot of work with TiddlyWiki, *making the life > of users and developers a lot easier*. > Practically I agree. It has been my experience in churning out work for quick purposes its got *a lot easier * as the core has expanded. It avoids having to manage a vast shopping list of plugins. Of course the question of what "universally useful" (i.e. widely relevant) functions are can be argued over. But my overall impression is that choices over extensions of the core have been very well measured--if anything slightly too "conservative". > A consideration ... is whether it really matters that the core gets big, > especially *now that we’re in a world where a simple news story weighs > 20MB.* There are valid concerns about slow networks but the best solution > there is to *set the server up with GZip compression* ... > Right. I think a few tests showing the benefit of GZippery on this might help show a larger core is not, in itself, a major issue for most use cases. What performance issues I've had are have never been to do with core size per se; rather that have been about in-efficiency in some design decision I took (handling large numbers of tags being one of them; screen refresh implications another). Best wishes TT -- 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/d16541cc-bfcb-445a-9016-0fb90157cee4o%40googlegroups.com.
