6 ms·

FWIW 'isomorphic javascript' was pretty much supplanted by 'universal javascript' last year per this medium post [1]. You might consider changing the copy. Edi

FWIW 'isomorphic javascript' was pretty much supplanted by 'universal javascript' last year per this medium post [1]. You might consider changing the copy. Edit: At the very least Dan Abramov (Redux creator) is ok with universal [2] [1] https://medium.com/@mjackson/universal-javascript-4761051b7ae9 https://medium.com/@mjackson/universal-javascript-4761051b7a... [2] https://github.com/gaearon/react-redux-universal-hot-example https://github.com/gaearon/react-redux-universal-hot-example

thecopy 11y ago
But isomorphic sounds cooler...
patates 11y ago
Many people still don't agree, neither do I. There's no doubt that the term "universal" is more correct, however, languages don't work that way. In the JS land isomorphic has a very specific meaning. Universal is a flexible word. "A universal api for observables" means something (works across libraries), "An isomorphic api for observables" means something else (works across environments) .
ch0wn 11y ago
I was under the impression that the community as a whole had agreed to switch to that term as well. :( Given your name I reckon you feel strongly about this, too.
prank7 11y ago
Lets not get caught in 'war of words'. There is no standard to it and I don't think it matters as long as you understand what it means.
- egwynn 11y ago
  > There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. > -- Phil Karlton
  - cjslep 11y ago
    I like the self referential version: "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."
- tajen 11y ago
  > as long as you understand what it means. Isn't the whole effect of litterary words to be specific but exclusive?
Touche 11y ago
Universal JavaScript is incorrect. There are more JS runtimes than Node and the Browser. Does React run in Postgres? In Duktape?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joshmanders 11y ago
FWIW those of us in the JavaScript community who don't care to create buzzwords for everything call it JavaScript. No Isomorphic, no Universal. There's nothing different. It's just JavaScript.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  > There's nothing different. It's still JavaScript, but how you design/write it is fundamentally different when you're writing for both the client and server.
  - joshmanders 11y ago
    No the libraries you use are different. On the client you wouldn't use `fs` module, but on the server you wouldn't use jQuery unless you were manipulating the dom through scraping with Cheerios.
goldbrick 11y ago
FWIW no it wasn't. Everyone (everyone who javascripts anyways) already knows what "isomorphic javascript" means, and "Universal" is a fucking terrible name for what it is being applied to (it sounds like it is translated into all languages, or runs equally on Windows and Macs, or who knows, it's made for aliens or something).

thecopy 11y ago

But isomorphic sounds cooler...

patates 11y ago

Many people still don't agree, neither do I. There's no doubt that the term "universal" is more correct, however, languages don't work that way. In the JS land isomorphic has a very specific meaning. Universal is a flexible word. "A universal api for observables" means something (works across libraries), "An isomorphic api for observables" means something else (works across environments) .

ch0wn 11y ago

I was under the impression that the community as a whole had agreed to switch to that term as well. :( Given your name I reckon you feel strongly about this, too.

prank7 11y ago

Lets not get caught in 'war of words'. There is no standard to it and I don't think it matters as long as you understand what it means.

egwynn 11y ago
> There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. > -- Phil Karlton
- cjslep 11y ago
  I like the self referential version: "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."
tajen 11y ago
> as long as you understand what it means. Isn't the whole effect of litterary words to be specific but exclusive?

Touche 11y ago

Universal JavaScript is incorrect. There are more JS runtimes than Node and the Browser. Does React run in Postgres? In Duktape?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

joshmanders 11y ago

FWIW those of us in the JavaScript community who don't care to create buzzwords for everything call it JavaScript. No Isomorphic, no Universal. There's nothing different. It's just JavaScript.

ohitsdom 11y ago
> There's nothing different. It's still JavaScript, but how you design/write it is fundamentally different when you're writing for both the client and server.
- joshmanders 11y ago
  No the libraries you use are different. On the client you wouldn't use `fs` module, but on the server you wouldn't use jQuery unless you were manipulating the dom through scraping with Cheerios.

goldbrick 11y ago

FWIW no it wasn't. Everyone (everyone who javascripts anyways) already knows what "isomorphic javascript" means, and "Universal" is a fucking terrible name for what it is being applied to (it sounds like it is translated into all languages, or runs equally on Windows and Macs, or who knows, it's made for aliens or something).