Rename Repository and Project

[intel]

Rename Repository and Project

[meirish]

+1

[rwaldron]

As a member of the jQuery Core Developer team, I'd like express my support for this. The use of "jQ" is misleading and will result in users assuming that their jQuery code, plugins etc will be compatible - which is not the case. Thank you in advance for your consideration and understanding.

[vladikoff]

+1

[imaffett]

We did not pick the name at random. Please see the post here which explains why we chose the name.

http://blog.jqmobi.com/post/15980523802/why-the-name-jq-mobi

[danheberden]

I have no doubts that you put a lot of thought into it. The point of the issue, however, is that the choice to use jQ not only misleads users, but is an outright theft of the jQuery brand. All of the points you wanted to cover in your choice to use 'jQ' could have been done in the documentation and promotion of your library.

I appreciate your time in reflecting on these points and the issue I created.

[gseguin]

+1

[wookiehangover]

+1

[ajpiano]

"Our message to JQuery developers is 'if you know JQuery, you know JQ.Mobi'"

This is just not true. There are broad swathes of the jQuery API that are simply not available in jQ.Mobi. If you think that event delegation helpers, deferreds (which are in turn baked into $.ajax), effects and dimensions utilities, and a litany of traversal methods, and other features are not included in "the ones that really matter" to jQuery users, then you are clearly not paying attention to actual end-user usage of the library in the slightest.

Sure, a lot of these things might not necessarily matter if you're only targeting WebKit (so cross-browser normalization is not really an issue) or you, as a developer, can live without all the sugar that jQuery offers (whether for performance, size, or other philosophical concerns), but like it or not, a lot of these things are what developers have come to expect when they use something that they know to be "jQuery".

By disingenuously claiming that jQuery is a "langugage," instead of what it obviously is - a JavaScript library - you lose the ability to choose to opt out of "the majority" of the API. People who use the jQuery "language" expect to be able to get all the following siblings of an element filtered by a selector in a single logical operation (nextAll). They expect to be able to do routine operations on the basic "language" building block - the jQuery object - like set the list of elements that comprise it (pushStack) or add onto it arbitrarily(add). They expect that they can late-bind AJAX callbacks to the return value of their $.ajax calls at any point in their application, instead of passing in callbacks only at the time of the initial request. They expect these magical things known as jQuery plugins to, you know, work. They may not care about the implementation details, but they want to actually use them.

What you've done isn't create a version of the jQuery "language" that's optimized for WebKit; it's instead analogous to releasing a version of the JavaScript language that doesn't have a while loop, because you don't think it's important.

There is a massive distinction between saying "if you know jQuery, you know jQ.Mobi," and saying "if you're used to a few of jQuery's idioms and already have a strong understanding of JavaScript and the DOM, you know jQ.Mobi," which I think everyone knows is much closer to reality here. More power to the people who want and need to develop their sites and apps this way, but none of them would ever claim to be writing the "jQuery language" without access to most of the tools to which they're accustomed.

No rational individual did or would accuse you of "choosing the name at random." It seems deliberately designed to promote ambiguity and make a big marketing splash. The notion that it's "jQuery rewritten, ground-up", when a cursory read through your blog and press release makes it abundantly clear that you are trying to solve completely different problems than the "desktop" jQuery (concerned above all about performance and memory usage) just does not make sense.

[StevenBlack]

I wonder if claims of end-user confusion and brand infringement might be overstated here?

I cannot think of a single instance where a rich and diverse software language, ecosystem, or niche doesn't regularly produce offshoots like this. Can anyone point to other instances where tangible damage and genuine confusion arise?

Looking into history and its patterns, damage does occur -- typically to the party that gets all discombobulated about it.

Here is what I recommend. Rather than long disquisitions, how about a period of some genuine chillin' and let's see if these lads don't produce something amazing. Instead of reactionary bitch-slapping-- aj c'mon! -- how about some genuine interest in making this cool.

Here's why: if it's no good then no problem, it won't take off. If it turns out that this is pretty good, then there's surely something to gain by making this great.

I understand where being touchy comes from. Sweat equity tends to make people touchy. I'm suggesting that being touchy and combattive isn't advisable at this juncture.

[Wilto]

+1

[ryanflorence]

I was confused, and I am very close to the jQuery project.

Very disingenuous to name it this in the first place, and even worse when its clear members of the jQuery team aren't happy about the name.

[ehynds]

+1

[wesbos]

+1 very confusing

[eddiemonge]

+1

[sindresorhus]

👍

[keeganwatkins]

+1

[tronning]

+1 @ StevenBlack

Could they have chosen a different name and still communicated the syntactical 1:1 with jQuery? Absolutely.

Does the use of the j and the Q to communicate some relationship to jQuery matter significantly to anyone outside of the jQuery sphere? Probably not.