Board Thread:Support Requests - Getting Technical/@comment-3539497-20170625031844/@comment-3312380-20170701061857

I agree that puzzle piece programming is easy and intuitive. The biggest problem with it is that the same programmers who make the shell are required to maintain them. Those programmers can just as easily maintain the source code without the shell.

Another problem is that there is no getting away from the underlying logic. For instance, diff_marks is common to both the shell and the (source) template itself. If you don't know what diff_marks are, the language is still used in both the (source) template and the shell. Easier? for some things that are unknown to the editor, not all. It is just as easy to figure out diff_marks from the (source) template.

Anther problem is ease of vandalism. The more you placate to the general public, the more havoc they can summon (in an easier manner).

Another problem is template creation. If it is unknown to an author how to make a template, a specific puzzle piece may not do the job. Sooner or later, the underlying code needs to be known to authors for specific applications, whereas a template can be tweaked after a simple copy/paste.

Don't get me wrong, puzzle pieces are great. They have a long way to go and the complication of application is even greater for a non-programmer.

Therein lies the choice: Do we make it easier to edit? How do we explain how to create/tweak one for differing applications?

With due diligence, it is up to the User to learn on their own. Either way, you have to know or otherwise figure out what "diff_marks" are. If you can do that, you can interpret the source.

In other words, receiving fish is never better than learning to catch fish.