Hi Jeremy, Thank you for your patient consideration and feedback, really. The very moment you find yourself not appreciating these conversations, I will accept your resignation, or mine... it's quite ok to have disparate positions, here and there.
Now, clearly, it’s possible to redesign the widget mechanism from scratch, > but you face quite a few hurdles: > I am hoping to eventually not try and redesign anything but rather extend on the widget architecture as it is, in manner that is as consistent, as it is as fail-safe as you wish it to be. At least, that would be the goal of it, because — and you can believe me on this one — nothing would please me more than for you to see a consistent whole and to be pleased with the result of it all. I don't want, at all, to be hacky about core development, although my toddler steps may start out as such... there is neither doubt nor argument here. > * In order to make fundamental changes to the mechanism and understand > their implications you will need a thorough — in fact, 100% complete — > understanding of the present implementation. The risk of hacking something > together that works in a handful of test cases is that it won’t work in > other circumstances > I believe, so long as the range of use-cases — where a modeling paradigm is clearly permissible — can be clearly defined, in terms of well defined constraints, any contributions that enhance capabilities are very much broadening the playing field. Yes, there may be edge-cases where those solutions will not and shall not work, and they most surely need to be named. However, respecting those (clearly identified constraints), they will nonetheless avail a sound and safe solution for 80% of the use-cases... that would otherwise not even be possible or exist. I know this increases complexity, and I enjoy the very moments when complexity has its ways to be reduced to an all-encompassing simplicity, just as much as you do... and I know, my experience and skills are by far not as exhaustive in all things Tiddly, although my naive aspirations may be. * You’ll need to learn not to ignore the warnings about the rules governing > widget behaviour. Concepts like functions that are not allowed to have > side-effects outside a narrowly defined output are utterly commonplace in > computer science, and the bravado of challenging those rules is misplaced > Believe me, I am very closely listening to the warnings and I almost never ignore them, trying all the way to the marrow to understand them. Without that, there is a good chance, I am truly just babbling, code-wise. Yes, I don't want to be the guy who ignores scope and has its doings overreach well defined constraints. I am always searching for an as consistent as congruent whole. But, I will not just accept a constraint, so long as I do not understand it. And if that means, that I need to learn by mistake, then that is precisely the lesson I need to learn... trial and error style. > * Unlikelihood of acceptance into the core because the problem you are > addressing can be fixed in other ways > I imagine my argumentation can be tiresome, especially when it comes to being compatible with what can arguably be an erroneous past decision / development, that may not — at the time — have considered some (even fundamental) real-world-implications but went down a path of premature optimization that would henceforth drastically narrow available options, intentions for the better or not. I will never push you to accept into the core what you cannot consistently fit into a wholesome, possibly sub-optimal, but nonetheless reliable architecture... because that is what I wish to help contribute to and build on myself. So, when I challenge it, I try to do so only where duly admissible... at least where a perhaps superstitious hunch has me wanting to explore ways to overcome barriers and inconsistencies. I guess the exercise might seem like a good way of learning the system, but > I can’t help thinking it’s a bit of a waste of time: instead of learning to > drive the proffered car, you are taking it apart and trying to rebuild it > as a flying aircraft carrier. > If, for you, it feels like wasting time and regurgitating already made arguments, feel free to not engage or drop out at any point in time. Believe me, I do not wish to rebuild the core into a flying aircraft... unless I was really after that, maybe. But then, well, I dunno... perhaps you can appreciate the ways in which a solid car architecture can, in fact, be transformed into what also caters for aircraft requirements. Sorry to be so blunt! > Not at all, bluntness is the one true response to naivety... and I am quite sure that I, more often than never, deserve it. Best wishes, Tobias. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/e5b366c7-18ee-4ce5-921b-3730eafc2229%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
