5 ms·
Facebook has been using it internally for a long time. It would make no sense for them to rename the tool for open-source release just because a naming conflict
by avarun 8y ago
Facebook has been using it internally for a long time. It would make no sense for them to rename the tool for open-source release just because a naming conflict exists, unless you'd prefer they just not release it at all?
- koko775 8y agoIt can and has been done multiple times in the past - AsyncDisplayKit -> Texture is the one that immediately comes to mind as it happened after open-sourcing.
- asdsa5325 8y agoActually, it makes perfect sense to rename it.
- qznc 8y agoWhy not? Google renames every internal tool they release as well. E.g. Blaze -> Bazel and Rietveld -> Gerrit.
- cjhopman 8y ago> Rietveld -> Gerrit That's a bad example. Gerrit is not a new name for Reitveld, it's a totally new implementation (with similar inspiration). And both of those were publicly released under those names. Your underlying point is quite true, though.
- krschultz 8y agoWe typically do rename before open sourcing and intend to avoid namespace collisions. E.g. Litho was not the original name of that framework either. I am familiar with most of the other tools mentioned here (e.g. SonarJava) from my time doing Java development outside of Facebook and never had a collision in my head because this project is not actually a library or tool for Java. It's a standalone Electron app that works on iOS and Android for debugging purposes, the only Java part is incidental in the Android app (and could be Kotlin or C++ or whatever you want).
- batbomb 8y agoSonarQube isn’t just Java, it’s a generic framework for reporting from any language