If you try your hand at this, there is an incredible number of projects that haven't been touched in years. So it is unlikely that the authors will ever self-identify as "deprecated" (I've only come across one like that).
I've been using "Deprecated" when I'm aware of something in the current core that closely matches the functionality. For instance there is a "join" operator, which might work fine but will undoubtedly clash with the modern filter operator of the same name. Usually those same items are also "Oldish". But it's an aggregator, not a competition. If someone disagrees they can post their own 5-star link explaining how they use it every day and how it brings a smile to the lips of small cats and dogs. ;-) For older things, I'm leaning towards "Not-Current". On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 7:45:49 AM UTC-7 Soren Bjornstad wrote: > Is it reasonable to call something *deprecated* if it hasn't been > announced as such by the author? That's the best term I can think of, > though it is a little bit on the technical side. > > My concerns with the other suggestions: > > - "Obsolete" sounds like it is no longer necessary, it has been > superseded, which isn't necessarily true > - "Antiquated" seems oddly formal (plus it would seem to have the same > negative feeling of "old", to whatever extent that's a problem). > - "Vintage", as Jeremy said, has a positive connotation that doesn't > seem right. > - "Disused" is closer, but seems like it conveys something about how > many people actually use it (which we don't in fact know), rather than > whether you *should* use it. > > *Deprecated *means it shouldn't be used if you can find another solution, > and it's about whether people think you should use it, not about its raw > age or how many people actually do use it. The only issue I'm thinking of > right now is that it might suggest that it still works, which isn't > necessarily the case. > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 8:49:28 AM UTC-5 Mark S. wrote: > >> They all work *in situ*. And they all might be the basis of something >> rebooted. They just might not be the first choice for immediate use in a >> modern TW. So, how to gently convey that subtlety? >> >> On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 2:44:18 AM UTC-7 TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >>> jeremy...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> "Vintage" sounds desirable nowadays! We need to communicate that this >>>> stuff is no longer usable, so maybe "Obsolete"? The description can >>>> explain >>>> why it's still worth including. >>>> >>> >>> TBH, I'm getting CONFUSED! :-) >>> >>> *Obsolete / Vintage / Oldish. *REALLY? >>> >>> GIVE me aggregation of WHAT WORKS out-of-the-box WITHOUT ageism. >>> That is enough already! >>> >>> 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/4880a98e-836b-44f8-b21a-534eb42630f9n%40googlegroups.com.
