dgraph has it’s own language - it’s really nice and i like it. but it has one drawback.
every time when somebody asks me - what language does dgraph use, i answer “well… it’s graphQL… khhm… plus minus” and then i explain why it’s “plus minus”, and why it’s called so. since full name is too long and to be honest it doesn’t sound good, i often call it just “graphQL”, giving a mess to discussion because people think it’s original graphQL created in facebook.
so, the question is - if your database is called dgraph, if you are using your own language based on graphQL, why not just “dgraphQL”?
Basically the name was given in homage/continuity to the primary concept idea. I believe it was more to not pass on the idea that we were who created the concept. The naming is a bit like the given name to the “New C” the “C ++”.
I think we do not use “GraphQL ++” because this is not an evolution of the initial concept. But small basic differences in language. But the concept remains the same. The Query structure corresponds to the structure of the result. Just like in GraphQL.
Naming it “DgraphQL” would not be a bad idea, it would sound more commercial in fact. But as I mentioned above. The given name was more for creating a reference and respecting the initial conceptual idea.
It’s okay for you to tell other people names like “a New GraphQL” or “a Diff GraphQL”. But it’s not GraphQL for fact, and we have to make that very clear. Even our RDF people get confused with a specific standards from W3C. I think we should name it “RDF-D” hehehe
Personally I believe there will be no change in the name. But who knows life huh?
