Since there is a working API, wouldn’t it make sense to separate the backend and the frontend and enable the two parts to communicate via the API? On the one hand, this could speed up the development of the frontend and, on the other, enable completely different interfaces.
Just as an idea
I completely agree. And even the backend would then be easier to configure would it not?
But to be honest: I think there is a very small group of enthusiasts that dictate the course of *diaspora. Which is understandable (it’s their baby), but not always desirable i.m.h.o…
I know it’s not meant to be a FB killer, but rather an open alternative. But if you have still not implemented “groups”, after years of requests for it, I am really wondering who you think the potential user base is? Just a few tech adepts who want to do something different?
I really hope that *diaspora will take a more user centric (modern) approach someday so that we might have a realistic user friendly FB alternative. We really need to decentralize the internet if we want democracies to exist in the coming decades! A configurable UI would sure help!
Hey! So yeah, it is the plan. The truth is, this requires a huge amount of work and nobody’s ready to do that yet.
And @Mecallie honestly I don’t think that the core team is what’s blocking diaspora*. The only reason why we don’t have groups yet is that nobody wrote the code to create that feature. It’s as simple as that.
I am sorry if it looked like I was suggesting the core team is blocking anything. I do not mean it like that at all.
I simply think they have their own priorities and maybe not enough time to implement this feature. But I do think that the importance of groups cannot be underestimated. But that’s a bit off topic in this discussion 
I hope the development of *diaspora continues. In the mean time I have gone with Hubzilla (I know, it’s different…).