Discussion: jamstack word treatment

[philhawksworth]

Discussion: jamstack word treatment

Note to the reader:

This issue discusses how we write "JAMSTACK". I'm going to have to write the word itself a number of times in the issue as a result... which is bound to result in LOLs. So I'll normalise on jamstack for a while. This is not a statement of intent!

Goals of this issue

• Gather thoughts from the community about the best way to present the word jamstack when written
• Minimize confusion, maximize clarity
• Seek consensus on the best way to avoid confusion when communicating what jamstack is
• It would be useful to be able to be consistent ourselves, and offer a place to find the "generally accepted" word written as a reference.

Current challenges and observations

• Naming things is hard!
• The word was derived from JavaScript, APIs and Markup, but you don't have to use all 3 when adopting this architectureal model. So right away, by writing "JAMstack", we introduce confusion when explaining what this is.
• Most people using the term regularly tends to be using the form "JAMstack"
• The wider community currently use various ways of presenting the word, and we would like to be consistent
• I (Phil 👋) quietly experimented with a revised treatment on jamstack.org without discussing it or announcing it first. This created more confusion and discussion than I anticipated! My bad. Apologies!
• Chris Coyier observered and commented on our flux nicely: https://css-tricks.com/jamstack-vs-jamstack/
• If we feel it appropriate to follow the lead of things like "LAMP", then we might note that this is generally referred to as "LAMP stack"
• If we would take inspiration from things like "AJAX", then we might note that this is generally referred to as "Ajax" (see below)
• Naming things is hard!

Proposal and justification

My opinion is that we should adopt "Jamstack" as our norm.

• It avoids the common first question of "what does that stand for?", more often instead prompting, "what is that?"
• It's easier to avoid well-intentioned consistencies than are common with "JAMstack" (JAM Stack, JAM stack, JAMStack)
• and as I mentioned on the jamstack slack:

I'd just offer this one comparison: Ajax.

When I first started using Ajax, it was always called "AJAX" and stood for Async JavaScript And XML. Over time, JSON became more popular than XML with this pattern, but we still called it the same thing. And these days we'd refer to it as "Ajax" (if at all, lol) because what it stands for is more than what the acronym consists of.

Over the last 5 years since the term was coined, the ecosystem which enables the jamstack has evolved and matured so much. The term needs to not divert attention away from that fact, and towards the original acronym. — I believe that jamstack stands for so much more than using JavaScript, APIs and Markup. I think it stands more for:

• Pre-rendering as much as possible
• Serving a site with static assets, without the need for a webserver executing logic to create responses on demand
• Enhancing with JavaScript and leveraging browser APIs where appropriate
• Feasting on the flourishing API economy, and decoupling our own services into APIs which our UIs can consume.

...but I'm keen on wider perspectives about the word.

For discussion

So... how should we normalise how we write this word?

[jakeherp]

I believe JAMstack is most correct since it's an acronym just like MERN stack or LAMP stack vs. Mern and Lamp.

[philhawksworth]

That's true @jakeherp. That was its inception.

Any thoughts on when you use this architecture but you are not using APIs or JavaScript? That's where some confusion creeps in.

Ajax started as an acronym too, but the meaning became refined.

[jakeherp]

@philhawksworth is it truly a Jamstack site if it isn't using APIs or JS? Just like a React site without Express and MongoDB wouldn't be a MERN site, but simply a React site.
I get your point that a Hugo site is considered Jamstack even though it's based on other technologies, but perhaps that's where the distinction should be different?

[michrome]

Did AJAX become Ajax because we send data other than XML, or is that just a coincidence? Are there other examples of acronyms moving from UPPERCASE to Titlecase?

[philhawksworth]

@philhawksworth is it truly a Jamstack site if it isn't using APIs or JS?

Yes it absolutely is.

This is one of the main pieces of confusion that I'm trying to address. Many people are pushing back on jamstack because they believe that it dictates that they MUST use client-side rendering and call out to APIs.

That is a powerful option, and often useful and appropriate. But certainly not a requirement. And often not needed.

The strap-line on jamstack.org is:

Fast and secure sites and apps delivered by pre-rendering files and serving them directly from a CDN, removing the requirement to manage or run web servers.

And the way I personally elaborate on that is as I did above:

• Pre-rendering as much as possible
• Serving a site with static assets, without the need for a webserver executing logic to create responses on demand
• Enhancing with JavaScript and leveraging browser APIs where appropriate
• Feasting on the flourishing API economy, and decoupling our own services into APIs which our UIs can consume.

[StarfallProjects]

@jakeherp I've always understood the "JavaScript" in JAM to be frontend JS, not the tech the static site generator is built with (given you can have SSGs in Go, Python, Java, Bash etc.)

[michrome]

• Pre-rendering as much as possible
• Serving a site with static assets, without the need for a webserver executing logic to create responses on demand
• Enhancing with JavaScript and leveraging browser APIs where appropriate
• Feasting on the flourishing API economy, and decoupling our own services into APIs which our UIs can consume.

Psefstack's got a nice ring to it! 🤡

[philhawksworth]

Did AJAX become Ajax because we send data other than XML, or is that just a coincidence? Are there other examples of acronyms moving from UPPERCASE to Titlecase?

I'm honestly not sure. But we didn't change the Acronym to AJAJ so much as shift towards accepting the term as a description of the model rather than as a strict acronym.

[StarfallProjects]

I think one umbrella term for "using a site generator and not worrying about the backend too much" (or Phil's more sophisticated definitions!) is useful.

I agree JAMStack feels "more correct", and jamstack gets on my tech-writery nerves, but I can see why having to explain "oh it stands for this, but you don't HAVE to use JS or APIs" gets tedious and confusing.

With regard to the AJAX example: while I'd probably write ajax casually, when writing an article/tutorial, or proofreading, I would still correct it to AJAX, as it's an acronym. So perhaps we need to think about what we're deciding on here. Are we discussing how we're going to use the term casually, as a community (in which case, jamstack is inevitable - that shift key is hard to reach!), or if we're going to try and govern a "proper" brand name. On which note - is it an official brand name at all?

I'd suggest that whatever happens, we're stuck with some variation on jam. The term is so widely used. That said, if it ever changes completely, switching to "Marmalade" would be my vote.

[philhawksworth]

That said, if it ever changes completely, switching to "Marmalade" would be my vote.

LOLOL!

starts designing a logo containing Paddington Bear

[philhawksworth]

and jamstack gets on my tech-writery nerves...

Just in case there is any confusion or is this was your meaning, I'm advocating for "Jamstack", not "jamstack"

Good points, @StarfallProjects.
I'm not trying to cite Ajax as strict prior art which we should follow to the letter (pun very happily intended)... just think it is an interesting reference.

My hope here is mostly to help us reach agreement on what how we might reasonably expect to see term written consistently on the jamstac.org site, and what conventions we might like to adopt in our wider usage.

jamstack.org is the natural place for people to come to learn "what is this thing?" so at the very least I'd like to have consistent and non-distracting usage here. And like many (I expect) I'd personally adopt what we settle on in my own writings and materials, for the sake of consistency.

[michrome]

As @StarfallProjects points out: an English, non-technical reader will interpret a sequence of capital letters as an acronym. Acronyms are useful because:

1. the reader can understand the concept without having to know what the letters stand for. AIDS is an example for many people;
2. if the reader does know what the letters stand for, they benefit from that additional information: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (I had to look it up!).

In contrast, we tend to read words starting with one capital letter as proper nouns e.g. "Netlify", "War and Peace" or "Buckingham Palace". Proper nouns are frequently unambiguous in their definition: a legal entity (company), a book with an ISBN or a specific building in London.

JAM stack seems most aligned to non-technical English writing in my opinion.

[colbyfayock]

i think its a compelling argument that other stacks separate out the word stack from the name, regardless of capitalization. i'm on the JAM camp, but I understand the reasonings here

@philhawksworth do you have any observations from the experiment yet? any "results" i guess?

I'm personally under the impression that you're going to be led to explaining the situation regardless because people are generally curious. "what's jamstack? oh how did you come up with that?"