Also, I think standard template needs to go on a weight-reduction diet on scale of 3x~5x smaller and easier to work on.
the size is acceptable at this stage where we are still missing important features.
Once I activate gzip transmission (doing it these days) it is 100KB + 150KB font-icons.
It loads in 3.5 seconds on a 3G connection and 1 second on my phone.
After first time it doesn't need to load anymore because it will just load the pure list of files without any html attached.
Every folder change is likely to be 5KB.
I don't see anything critical in the size. Anyway, in the future I (or other people) may spend time in trying to reduce the size, it's just not a priority.
Working on the icons size may be the best next move, i guess.
After that, maybe trying to switch from react to preact.
That may save up to 27KB (gzipped).
It's not even a problem of "it's hard to edit it" because you almost CAN'T do it. You are not supposed to, because it's against the kind of technology used there. That's why I'm trying to do the job through plugins.
Editing the template was a big plus of HFS2, but also a huge problem: once people customize their template for the sake of customizing a simple word/color/icon they are
lost (almost always), they don't get updates in the default template anymore, they go out of sync with consequences on functionality but also on security. Default template (hfs2) had nasty security bugs in the past, because it contains also dangerous commands, like delete.
Howabout a new thread for HFS3x user interface contest? Fun!
you are free to do it, but mind we are still in a experimental phase and things can change a lot.
No body is going to delete HFS 2, it is there for those who like it that way.
HFS 3 is actually a new software with very similar goals. I also considered rebranding it, and I don't exclude doing it in the future.
Think of the leap between windows3 and windows95.