NO! Tiddlywiki is a tool, not a con. Sorry, marketeers, this tool is as
attractive as a lathe - and lathes can be very attractive to someone who
knows and appreciates their features and facilities. If you know how to use
a lathe, you can make something, or a tool to make something, which *is*
defined by a market need, the same here. But the market does NOT define the
tool. So clear off, marketing men, stop trying to take *everything* over
with your variants in The Kings New Clothes:if you're so brilliant in your
omniscient knowledge, go play in your own sandpit and produce something
better. Tiddlywiki succeeds precisely BECAUSE it isn't specific:to a need.
If I have a need, to meet, it firstly needs specification, by examining
thoughts, squeezing here, expanding there, filtering and sorting sheep from
goats, until my ducks are in a row and a complex network of interacting
considerations can be reduced to a linear explanation "because A then B".
TW allows that kind of network, so we can twist it, push and pull it, until
what we have on the screen is a series of tiddlers which make sense. This
sorts out the messes you specialise in creating
<http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/051/development.jpg>,
because it cuts through the rhubarb and allows the design team to correct
its targetting. A lathe is something simple which can have specialist
features added as needed: it spins something so something else can shape
it. If I need a toolpost, I bolt it on. Equally so with TW: it is at heart
simply a heap of conceptual memes, how you sort them out and what you do
with them is entirely up to you, with what you bolt on by way of add-ins.
In a way, even the Tiddler-Journal split's an error, journals are simply
derivative Tiddlers.
Effectively, what you're doing is getting the tail to wag the dog. In pure
logic terms, marketing drills down towards a specific definition of an
instance of something needed - and that is as far as it goes, TW goes the
other way, generalising so it can handle as much as possible. That's
precisely why it's useful, and exactly what you hate. Well, hate yourself,
because that's where the error lies. TW does NOT need branding, or a
makeover, or any of the fancy-pants add-ons which will turn it into
functional candy-floss in time. And yes, I am a TW Classic User because the
TW5 makeover threw some parts of the baby I need out with the bathwater:
what you should have done was tidy up the OO structure, sure, but at the
same time with the extensions needed to preserve TWC interfacing. It's
exactly what MS has to do with Windows, keep a compatibility-mode until
orphaned code is eventually upgraded to become compatible. Just like the
TW5 coders, MS failed to do in the early versions, they've learned the
lesson and preserve backwards compatibility now, and that's a lesson to
keep in mind for the future.
I date so far back in computing my surname's at the centre of all code (I'm
Jeremy Main, and MAIN() came from a bad joke 50 years ago, contributing to
the design of one of the first compilers which Bell Labs picked over when
planning how to write C). The quid pro quo of working in OpenSource is that
your work too is OpenSource, so although you should be the person who
defines how your code mutates over time, if you abandon it, as LEWCID did,
then it reverts to community property and it's one of the functions of the
community steering group to take orphaned code in hand and find it a new
stepfather. That's how to complete the TW5 migration, and it does NOT mean
peddling hogwash.
In fact, you demonstrate your inability to get things straight inside your
first clause. From a marketing point? What is a marketing point? I take it
you mean a point of view, but if you're so muddy-minded as not to be
precise in your definitions, then what hope does anyone have of meeting
your requirements? Within four words, you already created the kind of
confusion shown in that cartoon.
On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 06:16:37 UTC+1, Mat wrote:
>
> From a marketing point, TW suffers from being too general. It kind of
> solves everything but this means someone looking for, say, recipe data base
> tool will choose "The Recipe Data Base Tool" rather than "TiddlyWiki". And
> someone looking for the Keto
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/fGy-NPGpX6s> diet
> will turn to... you get it. And so on for every subject/issue/need.
>
> So, what would it take for TW to have "multiple entrances"? One "entrance"
> that really is for 'recipe people'. Another that really attracts those
> feeling ketosis. Etc.
>
> I have some thoughts (not necessarily great or practical ones) but before
> I let them steer your associations, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
>
> How can we actually make this be real? (as opposed to hypothetically if we
> had a marketing budget etc)
>
> <:-)
>
>
--
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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/731a9f27-169f-49b2-b550-216552945db9%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
