I would prefer left to right naming: source to target: mxml-jsc, as-jsc, etc.
EdB On Thursday, August 20, 2015, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','joshtynj...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > These are pretty straightforward options: > > js-mxmlc > jsmxmlc > > I'd lean more towards the version with the dash in the name, if we consider > that we also have a jqueryc to rename. I think jquery-mxmlc is easier to > read than jquerymxmlc. > > In the future, I would also hope to see node-mxmlc for NodeJS. > > Does MXML work with this output type? If not, then maybe using asc in the > name would be better: > > js-asc > jsasc > > - Josh > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/19/15, 4:27 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Typically, the name of a compiler comes from the language it compiles > into > > >something else. > > > > > >asc = ActionScript compiler > > >mxmlc = MXML Compiler > > >tsc = TypeScript Compiler > > >csc = C Sharp Compiler > > > > > >jsc doesn't follow that convention. Instead, it's named after its output > > >format, with no mention of its input language. With this name, many > > >developers might expect it to compile JavaScript into something else. > > > > > >Should it be renamed? > > > > I’m open to renaming just about every name the code base. Suggest some > > names. > > > > -Alex > > > > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
