Ben Gillies wrote:
> - it's virtually impossible to understand what's going on under the
hood without completely deconstructing the raw code - hence providing
an incredibly steep learning curve for even making small
modifications, much less using it as a platform
All of those examples are plain HTML and JavaScript built in much the
same way as any other SPA is today. There really is nothing going on
under the hood with them (indeed that's sort of the point).
> - hence, it's better as an existence proof, and a source of ideas -
but it's easier to redesign from scratch to get to a useful platform
How "from scratch" do you mean here? TiddlySpace provides a backend
server that you can write SPAs on in JavaScript "from scratch". As
long as you follow the RESTful API, you can use whatever (e.g.
Backbone) you want.
I'm not quite sure why you keep going back to TiddlySpace. What makes
TiddlyWiki so special is the model of a "wiki in a single file" or "wiki
on a stick." Complete with themeing, code updating and a plug-in
architecture. That's the beginning of a serious platform.
If you look at a server-side equivalent - something like WikiMedia, or
Drupal, or WordPress, or perhaps CouchDB, or eXist - the systems have
clear, and clearly documented architectures - it's pretty clear how to
write a new theme, write a new module, access various APIs, write an
application on top of the platform, etc.
That's pretty much missing for TiddlyWiki - and it's a real obstacle to
anyone who'd actually like to use or extend the platform.
to which [email protected] wrote:
This is the case with about 95% of the open source out there in the
world, and is not necessarily a bad thing. If everything was already
perfect there would be no evolution and innovation, perhaps?
Which is not to excuse the current state of affairs, nor to explain
it, but rather to just indicate that it is fairly normal and there's
no catastrophe in progress here.
Keep in mind that this is a thread on the BUSINESS side of TiddlyWiki -
starting from Eric's statement about finding a way to get paid for some
of his TiddlyWiki work, and then Jeremy's posts about going out on his
own and focusing on "making TiddlyWiki good."
My comments have been offered as feedback in the context of open source
business models - what it takes for a Drupal or CouchDB to survive and
thrive as a platform, complete with a model for supporting a core group
of developers, and a model for attracting and maintaining a larger
development and user community - and what needs to happen for TiddlyWiki
to move into that league.
IMHO, Tiddly has (or at least had) the potential to become a pretty
serious platform, for a wide range of stand-alone, single page
applications. A lot of my comments have been motivated by working on a
project where I would really like to have used TiddlyWiki as a jumping
off point – and just finding too many obstacles in the way - leading to
our conclusion that we're probably better off going our own way (if our
project gets funded for Phase II).
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In<fnord> practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
