It’s great to have another perspective on this. Some of these issues can be addressed by SEO.
It could be that we should be careful about changing names, and / or timing of changing names. Alex does make a good point that the project name does not need to be the same as the product name. It might make sense to keep the product as FlexJS for now at least and just pick a different project name. The product name is easier to change than the project name and a project can have more than one product. If I would pick a reference to a product which did a major rebranding to drop associations to old technology it would be Xojo. I’m not sure how many here are familiar with it, but it used to be call REALBasic. A few years back they rebranded as Xojo. I don’t think it made much of a difference to the folks using it. I have no idea if it helped them or not. Harbs > On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:07 PM, Justin M. Hill <jus...@prominic.net> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > I am not someone with an official vote, but I wanted to express my concern > about ditching the FlexJS name. > > The largest possible market for adoption of a new "javascript" solution is > to go after those who have stuck with Flex. There are FAR too many > javascript solutions on the market right now. > > If the vote is to change the name, this will: > > -- confuse the people who have been patiently waiting for FlexJS to get to > 1.0 so they can dive in. > > -- get lost in the noise of all of the other far more well popularized > javascript frameworks like Angular, React, etc. > > -- lose the feeling, however small it may be, that those who came from the > Flex background can expect to have some of their knowledge recycled. > > > These are 3 critical aspects in terms of raising awareness and having a > potentially devoted following of one technology (Flex) star to transition > and champion to a new one (FlexJS). > > If we lose that, then we effectively have to target against ALL javascript > frameworks, most notably ones that are heavily entrenched already and > supported by giant company resources like Google and Facebook. > > > I am strongly opposed to a name change. I think this would be a huge > mistake. > > On top of that, picking a new name and gaining awareness of it is HARD. > > It should be reason enough for the Apache powers-that-be to approve a > project change to avoid being stuck with a huge legacy Flex bugbase that > Adobe donated, and instead start fresh with our 1.0 name. > > If that cannot be achieved, then at a bare minimum we should seek to keep > the name FlexJS. > > > Regarding targeting something other than Javascript -- like SWF or AIR -- I > realize the debug aspect benefits are important, but all this is going to > do is confuse people. > > I have read about HaXe a dozen times, and I never understand what it does > because apparently it does too much. A swiss army knife is a lot more > confusing to use then a fixed head screwdriver. > > Please, we have spent SO much time trying to get to 1.0 -- lets get FOCUSED > on delivering what everyone outside of the community of active participants > here has been waiting on, which is a future direction for their Flex > efforts. > > Thank you, > > Justin Hill > http://Prominic.NET | Skype: JustinProminic > > My Apache Flex community contribution is working on the open > source Moonshine-IDE.com for FlexJS.
