5 ms·

There's a very well-known JS library already named "Q", here: https://github.com/kriskowal/q https://github.com/kriskowal/q I'd suggest a name change.

stormbrew 13y ago
Yeah, this was very confusing. I thought this was some kind of extension to that library at first.
lancefisher 13y ago
This is the Q.js I thought they were talking about at first too. I second a name change.
EGreg 13y ago
Well, we started about 2 years ago and our company's been calling it Q internally. This is just the front end SDK for what we built (Q spans PHP, Node.js and front end css/js.) I think we're going to keep the name.
- alanh 13y ago
  This is the biggest piece of feedback you have gotten yet. Q isn’t nearly as famous as e.g. Backbone or Ember or Modernizr, but it is established and well-known. Your name is actually a barrier to this catching on, I think.
  - EGreg 13y ago
    What if ours becomes better known? As I said we've started 2 years ago.
    - tudborg 13y ago
      that is a bit childish. the time you began development is not relevant, and seeing as q.js is already popular, it is safe to say it will stay that way. changing the name is great advice. consider it.
    - jbigelow76 13y ago
      You may have started two years ago but you only open sourced it for the community two hours ago.
    - shardling 13y ago
      Even if that was somehow relevant (it doesn't really matter what you called it internally if you didn't use the name publicly), the existing Q.js is older! Here is the first public version, from 3 years ago: https://github.com/Gozala/q/tree/v0.1.0 https://github.com/Gozala/q/tree/v0.1.0
    - jjsz 13y ago
      This is where you ask yourself "would I like if someone releases a product with the exact same name as my company's and moved us to the second page of Google?".
    - tudborg 13y ago
      that is a bit childish. the time you began development is not relevant, and seeing as q.js is already popular, it is safe to say it will stay that way. changing the name is great advice. consider it.
    - tudborg 13y ago
      that is a bit childish. the time you began development is not relevant, and seeing as q.js is already popular, it is safe to say it will stay that way. changing the name is great advice. consider it.
- shintoist 13y ago
  You are throwing your work away by giving it the same name as an already established JS library.
  - EGreg 13y ago
    OK sorry let me put it another way ... the larger library is meant to run on PHP and Node.js, and the Q.js and front end part is just the SDK to use it on a web browser. So when the whole thing is released, it will mostly be a PHP+Node.JS+Web library.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  As a long time user of the original Q (which has been around since at least 2009 [1]), I'd also suggest picking a different name for another reason: searchability. [1] https://github.com/kriskowal/q/commit/9191ce4c803cc3f8a01fb6c3a428ac57c9a83d3f https://github.com/kriskowal/q/commit/9191ce4c803cc3f8a01fb6...

stormbrew 13y ago

Yeah, this was very confusing. I thought this was some kind of extension to that library at first.

lancefisher 13y ago

This is the Q.js I thought they were talking about at first too. I second a name change.

EGreg 13y ago

Well, we started about 2 years ago and our company's been calling it Q internally. This is just the front end SDK for what we built (Q spans PHP, Node.js and front end css/js.) I think we're going to keep the name.

alanh 13y ago
This is the biggest piece of feedback you have gotten yet. Q isn’t nearly as famous as e.g. Backbone or Ember or Modernizr, but it is established and well-known. Your name is actually a barrier to this catching on, I think.
- EGreg 13y ago
  What if ours becomes better known? As I said we've started 2 years ago.
  - tudborg 13y ago
    that is a bit childish. the time you began development is not relevant, and seeing as q.js is already popular, it is safe to say it will stay that way. changing the name is great advice. consider it.
  - jbigelow76 13y ago
    You may have started two years ago but you only open sourced it for the community two hours ago.
  - shardling 13y ago
    Even if that was somehow relevant (it doesn't really matter what you called it internally if you didn't use the name publicly), the existing Q.js is older! Here is the first public version, from 3 years ago: https://github.com/Gozala/q/tree/v0.1.0 https://github.com/Gozala/q/tree/v0.1.0
  - jjsz 13y ago
    This is where you ask yourself "would I like if someone releases a product with the exact same name as my company's and moved us to the second page of Google?".
  - tudborg 13y ago
    that is a bit childish. the time you began development is not relevant, and seeing as q.js is already popular, it is safe to say it will stay that way. changing the name is great advice. consider it.
  - tudborg 13y ago
    that is a bit childish. the time you began development is not relevant, and seeing as q.js is already popular, it is safe to say it will stay that way. changing the name is great advice. consider it.
shintoist 13y ago
You are throwing your work away by giving it the same name as an already established JS library.
- EGreg 13y ago
  OK sorry let me put it another way ... the larger library is meant to run on PHP and Node.js, and the Q.js and front end part is just the SDK to use it on a web browser. So when the whole thing is released, it will mostly be a PHP+Node.JS+Web library.
tlrobinson 13y ago
As a long time user of the original Q (which has been around since at least 2009 [1]), I'd also suggest picking a different name for another reason: searchability. [1] https://github.com/kriskowal/q/commit/9191ce4c803cc3f8a01fb6c3a428ac57c9a83d3f https://github.com/kriskowal/q/commit/9191ce4c803cc3f8a01fb6...