Name conflict with Q

[tadman]

There's already the Q promise library. Isn't there another name that might work better?

[pwmckenna]

👍 ...and the promise library is phenomenal. not likely to disappear anytime soon

[michaelsbradleyjr]

+1

[ryanwitt]

+1

[waawal]

👍

[EGreg]

👍 ...and the promise library is phenomenal. not likely to disappear anytime soon

how well did this age? the last commits were 8 years ago or so.

Browsers made promises native. Can I use the letter Q now for the library?

Fun fact, less tongue-in-cheek: back then in 2013 I actually went through my entire Q framework and renamed it to "Qbix Platform", exactly because of the fans of Q Promises library complaining about the name conflict.

[michaelsbradleyjr]

how well did this age? the last commits were 8 years ago or so.

Browsers made promises native. Can I use the letter Q now for the library?

Promises weren't standardized until ECMAScript 6 was published in 2015, a couple of years after this issue was created. Also, there were several versions of kriskowal/q published per year from 2014-2017.

In hindsight, though, as one of the folks who +1d re: the naming concern, and having spent another decade working with and on various software — it turns out library-project naming conflicts don't matter all that much. These days, unless an author/s were trolling or being political or scammy or trying to steal someone else's thunder (obviously you weren't), I don't think I'd raise an eyebrow or be less inclined to give it a look. There are just so many developers and projects (packages, libraries), naming conflicts are bound to happen, and if it seems like a "big problem! ripe for confusion!", well, it's probably just the bubble you inhabit at the time.

I hope you're doing well these many years later, thanks for the trip down memory lane!