3 ms·
Group has a common interpretation that I don't think is at great odds with the mathematical definition. 'Isomorphic' as they use it needs this common interpreta
by spacemanmatt 12y ago
Group has a common interpretation that I don't think is at great odds with the mathematical definition. 'Isomorphic' as they use it needs this common interpretation established a little better than "the same code runs on client and server" as written in ad copy.
If you think that is my opinion, I think you are correct. I don't feel terribly isolated here, though. But I haven't begun to rant.
- pluma 12y agoYou can't stop the proliferation of buzzwords. Ajax used to explicitly refer to the use of XMLHttpRequest to communicate with the web server without requiring a full page reload (incidentally, XMLHttpRequest doesn't require the use of XML). Eventually it went on to mean "interactive stuff on web pages" (probably because "Ajax libraries" like jQuery are as much about abstracting away the DOM as they are about abstracting away XHR). HTML 5 used to refer to the HTML part of the Web Applications spec of WHAT WG. But WHAT WG dropped the version number (and the W3C has actually moved on to HTML 5.1 for the newer features) and most people say "HTML5" when they actually mean unrelated technologies like new browser APIs or "CSS3" (which isn't really a thing anymore because CSS was split into tiny modules, some of which are already at level 4 rather than 3). The meaning of words changes. Especially when those words are used by groups outside of the (possibly much smaller) group that originally defined them. Resistance is futile. Deal with it.