Is it too late to switch the names around?


#1

In chemistry: isn’t an electron a type of item than can go into an atom. An atom is the overall shell and in it can go lots of things, one of example of which is an electron.

But here, the app names are seemingly reversed. Electron is a shell which can load up web apps, one of which is Atom.


#2

Disclaimer: I am not an employee of GitHub nor a member of the Atom Core team. I’m just an enthusiastic volunteer.

I can’t speak for GitHub, but I would say that at this point, yes, it is too late to switch the names around. The Atom name has been in common public usage for a year and a half now and the Electron name has been around for at least a few months. I’m not a public relations expert, but I believe that rebranding in the best of cases is hard … let alone swapping related names like you’re suggesting.


#3

Besides the fact that it is quite late to change the names, I believe it makes more sense this way.
You don’t put stuff like Atom in Electron or Electron doesn’t really load Atom. You use Electron as a building block for an application like Atom, just like atoms are, among other things, made up of electrons.

Both views are valid in a way, It’s just a difference in the way you look at it.


#4

Agree with @StenV here. It’s a matter of perspective, but since Electron is only one component which the Atom editor is made of, the naming does make sense this way.


#5

Yeah, they should have called it Nucleus instead of Electron, that would make some sense (Atom = Nucleus + stuff around it (electrons))


#6

Nuclide is the name Facebook uses for its collection of packages for Atom. So, if Electron would be called Nucleus, then Nuclide would be built on top of Atom, which in itself would be built on top of Nucleus.