On May 2, 1:43 am, FND <[email protected]> wrote: > That depends. > If we were to embark on the 3.0 path without being encumbered by the > issue of backwards compatibility, I believe that could very well be > worth the effort of providing bug fixes for the legacy (2.x) line.
That is a good insight and practical. While my understanding of the intricacies of coding is childlike, my understanding of large projects from other disciplines is not. Perhaps some my questions could be taken as, 'out of the mouths of babes oft times come gems...' Many years ago when I was a young electronics engineer we were asked to create a new line of products with the proviso that we couldn't change any of the metalwork. The frustrating result was that fifteen of us left the company and started a new company. Unrestricted by such unreasonable demands we prospered beyond all imagination and came to dominate our market segment while the original company withered and died. My questions, not in any particular order, are: 1: My first basic naive question is, for proof of concept, what is the difference between having jQuery in the TiddlyWiki core than having it in the PreHead as an external file? Either way wouldn't it be useful to see some decent prototyping showing the expected advancements in actual capabilities rather then those imagined, and the effort required to achieve them? 2: If it is envisioned that jQuery might someday migrate to running parts of the TiddlyWiki core how can backward compatibility not be compromised, create unnecessary work, or restrict innovation? 3: I understand that one of jQuery's attributes is the large number of plugins developed for it. This is also one of TiddlyWiki's great strengths. It seems to me that this is a built-in conflict that will require a double translation and ad-hoc code that has no other uses if the integrity of the TiddlyWiki remains unchanged (including backwards compatibility). 4: As an observation, after playing with jQuery for many months, it seems to have been designed to make standard HTML pages do things TiddlyWiki does naturally. Many are animations, which I personally abhor as unnecessary and outdated, 'do it because you can'. But that's personal and of course it is more than that. This question is; since jQuery is nothing more than a library of JavaScript, which TiddlyWiki is quite capable of doing without its help, at what point will even better libraries be able to be integrated into TiddlyWiki and at what cost? In summary, even though there are many other questions that can, or should be, asked, I have these final ones for the moment. How much should one ask of a unique single-file innovation with versatility for applications that have only been touched on? At the present state of the TiddlyWiki art some of the useful application sizes are approaching a megabyte before even being started to be used as an application. I ask this question as I would have asked many times in my business career; 'what business are we really in?' Is it ColdFusion, Php, Linex or Microsoft? There is nothing wrong with starting with jQuery within TiddlyWiki as suggested and I applaud it but ask yourself where are we going, and don't try to fool yourself you are not changing the fundamentals and not creating something different. You can't change something without changing it, as you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. I saw in one of the threads that jQuery is needed to keep developers interested, that is nonsense, what next will they need to hold their fickle attention? Eric was right, at the beginning of this thread, in reminding us that it is the application that is the desired end result. And at the risk of showing my age, my father always said; 'Cobbler stick to thy last.' Morris On May 2, 1:43 am, FND <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am reluctant to run two branches - doing so is a > > significant amount of extra work and I'm not convinced that the > > benefits it brings are worth it. > > That depends. > If we were to embark on the 3.0 path without being encumbered by the > issue of backwards compatibility, I believe that could very well be > worth the effort of providing bug fixes for the legacy (2.x) line. > > -- F. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" 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/TiddlyWikiDev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
