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, 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.