Poll: Should we rename Amber.js? • Hacker News Board

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#41

Post by evjan » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:42 AM UTC

Suggestions: peach.js, honey.js and cloudberry.js

I am hungry, in case you were wondering.

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#42

Post by sjce » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:44 AM UTC

steipete wrote: post #7

I just searched for "Amber" on Google, and the first 5 (!) pages didn't show me anything even remotely Smalltalk-related. I didn't looked any further. Stick with Amber.js.

Wrong conclusion. That means that sproutcore 2.0 is also unlikely to be visible on google. new name.

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#43

Post by sjce » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:50 AM UTC

stefri wrote: post #40

Stick with "Amber.js". Everything else would be more confusing as it is already ... and it's short! I like it :)

It is a bad name for Googleing. Just like Gemstone for another smalltalk, b.t.w.

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#44

Post by sjce » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:52 AM UTC

nathanvda wrote: post #10

The name is not Amber, but Amber.js, which for me is clearly a js framework and as a whole a good, unique name. I do not think there will be a lot of confusion. Also I do think that moving away from Sproutcore is a good choice, because when I talked with fellow rubyists about Sproutcore, I always ment Sproutcore 2.0, but this always caused confusion because people always had 1.0 in mind (it is huge, too much, ... whi…

You haven't taken a look at Amber, have you? It is also a javascript framework

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#45

Post by sjce » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:55 AM UTC

Internal version codenames are not recognizable, and are not expected to be used like this (www.macosxlion.com?) With hindsight, there should have been a site at amberjs.com.

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#46

Post by andyl » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 1:43 AM UTC

Keep the amber letters, but rearrange. (an anagram) Candidates include: merba.js, ebarm.js, rabem.js, etc.

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#47

Post by dgeb » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 2:16 AM UTC

Orbit.js

I just registered orbitjs.com but would be willing to donate it. I think the name is a good fit for a framework that aims to keep so many objects moving effortlessly around each other. Contact me (@dgeb) if you're interested.

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#48

Post by arbales » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 3:04 AM UTC

wycats wrote: post #20

abhishivsaxena wrote: post #17

I think you should consult the Amber Smalltalk people If they agree to a linkback, great. Going ahead with amber.js without their consent would be morally grey.

We emailed them immediately once we realized and they (of course) said they would prefer if we rename to something else. Because we had been using the name publicly for so long, we decided to lay out the relevant details and ask Hacker News.

If you've been using it and its comfy, just stick with it. People will just care about the code anyway.

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#49

Post by uipoet » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 3:41 AM UTC

Binder.js

Re: Poll: Should we rename Amber.js?

#50

Post by ZuLuuuuuu » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 4:56 AM UTC

Amber Smalltalk is a pretty popular and alive JavaScript project so I vote for renaming.