# Should Features be Core or Plugin **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature\ **Created:** [12. Mai 2014 um 16:39 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-features-be-core-or-plugin/15567 "2014-05-12T16:39:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1
**Author:** ![Mittineague](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/mittineague/32/114259_2.png) [@Mittineague](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Mittineague)\ **Post date:** [12. Mai 2014 um 16:39 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-features-be-core-or-plugin/15567/1 "2014-05-12T16:39:34Z")
Continuing the discussion from [Repetitive gutter links?](https://meta.discourse.org/t/repetitive-gutter-links/13495/29): > [@katie](#): > > I am usually looking at perfecting something that would work better rather than think about plugins to enhance the current function. Because like this, we will say “you need to create a plugin for every improved feature” and it becomes a pattern in the language of development. > > I’ve seen this being said on many forums like Vbulletin, IPB and so on, although now days VB is taking a better approach at listing rather than say “you can create an addon to do this or that” I can see both sides and I think a balanced approach is best. First, “You can’t please all of the people all of the time” is very true. Some apps go for a bare-bones Core to keep it light weight. Users need to use plugins for just about everything. Some apps succumb to feature bloat in an effort to do everything. The app is heavy, and for most users many features aren’t ever used. The features also present users with a lot of configurations done either by editing files or a complex ACP IMHO either of these extremes is not the optimal solution. Perhaps the best way is to have anything not “essential” be a plugin, and when a certain number of users find that plugin useful then consider incorporating it into the Core? --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-features-be-core-or-plugin/15567)._