2 ms·
Right, particularly they're homomorphisms that admit inverses. I confused myself into thinking that the fact that they admit an inverse implies that they're str
by jdoliner 9y ago
Right, particularly they're homomorphisms that admit inverses. I confused myself into thinking that the fact that they admit an inverse implies that they're structure preserving but that obviously isn't true. Still I don't see anything here that doesn't basically apply to running the same code on client and server. Since the entire point is that you are preserving structure, Go is supposed to have exactly the same semantics on client and server.
- hyperpallium 9y agoYep. But as others have said, it's not really isomorphism in a mathematical sense. The article defines "Isomorphic web applications" as "where the web server and the web browser (the client), may share all, or some parts of the web application code." Just, "same shape" on both sides. If it was identical code, I would (mathematically) call it an identity (which, to be fair, is an isomorphism). But it's not identical; they transpile go to js ("GopherJS - A compiler from Go to JavaScript"). This compilation itself is arguably an isomorphic mapping, with the same code doing equivalent things on both sides. e.g. equivalent assignments between equivalent variables. Two problems with this interpretation (1) a transpiler doesn't have to be isomorphic (e.g. could use different idioms); (2) that's not really the aspect they're referring to.