4 ms·

lmao, "isomorphic"

bonif 12y ago
+1! (ok with the downvotes)
dreamdu5t 12y ago
from the Greek "isos": "equal", "morph": "shape". Do you have a better suggestion? I don't see anyone complaining about the use of the word "function" instead of "subroutine".
- acjohnson55 12y ago
  What is the "shape" that's being referred to, and in what sense is it "equal"?
  - jnmuel 12y ago
    It's essentially the opposite of polymorphism. Polymorphism says that if you look at the same thing in two different contexts you should get two different results. Isomorphism says that if you look at the same thing in two different contexts you should get the same thing. Here the contexts are server and client.
    - nox_ 12y ago
      In which universe is polymorphism the opposite of isomorphism? Couldn't we just have said "JavaScript that runs everywhere" instead of trying to sound educated?
      - aboodman 12y ago
        When you want to refer to the same concept over and over, it helps to give it a name. Other examples: ajax, lamp, nosql, soa ... they may be buzzwords, but they are helpful. I don't see the problem here.
        nox_ 12y ago
        Isomorphism was already a word before Nodejitsu abused it. Your examples are acronyms and abbreviations. Nevermind that this concept is not even worth a name.
        aboodman 12y ago
        It is common to repurpose words this way. I think it is called 'metaphor'. See also: half the names in technology and all nearly every apple product name. Anyway, I find the term useful.
        nox_ 12y ago
        Metaphors make sense, that reusing of isomorphism doesn't, however you quote Greek words to justify your means.
- jonsterling 12y ago
  It's just that "isomorphism" has a very well-defined meaning, and this is essentially cargo-culting mathematical-sounding language to refer to something that has nothing to do with isomorphism at all (at least, not in the sense that the word is usually meant). You can do all the reverse etymology you want, but in the end, we all know this is just a word that JavaScript kids are using because it makes them feel cool. This sort of reminds me of when that weird kid nobody likes tries on a new nickname (like "The Chief" or "Serpent" or "T") and I have to kindly say, “Hey bingo/bud, I'm really sorry, that nickname is just not happening".
  - abathologist 12y ago
    In light of my previous reply, I wonder why you think appropriation of terms is okay going one way but not the other. It really seems a bit like bullying. Why can't the weird kid call itself whatever the weird kid chooses? It seems like the job of a bully to say "no way twerp, you can't use 'The Chief', that's only for cool kids to use". I don't know why you'd willingly take on that role.
    - steego 12y ago
      No one is stopping the weird kid from reappropriating words and nobody is being bullied. People are simply objecting to a use of the word. This is no different than people objecting to using the word literally to emphasize a figurative expression. To your other point, I'm not against reappropriating words in different contexts to describe ideas metaphorically. In this particular case, isomorphic is already defined in a programming/math context. You're not so much reappropriating a definition to a new contract as you're making an existing word sound more ambiguous in the same context by diluting it. I think the reason people are so passionate about not diluting this term is because they want people to understand and really appreciate the value of isomorphisms. They're not being bullies to make themselves feel superior, they're trying to protect an idea from being misrepresented.
- Havvy 12y ago
  platform agnostic, environment agnostic, cross-platform. We already have words that mean exactly what is trying to convey. Taking a word that doesn't and adding it to that pool (especially when isomorphic has a meaning in mathematics and computer science already - e.g. two functions are isomorphic if for all inputs they produce the same output, even if their implementation differs) is a bad idea. Edit: And we who argue that isomorphic is not the right word for this concept already know what the word means. We also know what the words in the definition mean, and also its usage, which is as a relation between two elements in the same set. Saying something is isomorphic on its own is against the definition.
oe 12y ago
I think that's a well-established name for rendering the same JS both in the back-end and front-end. Would some other name work better?
- jonsterling 12y ago
  It's just really confusing, since it has literally nothing to do with the established meaning of "isomorphism". Also kind of cringe-y, since you know it's just JavaScript people trying to sound cool. Another commenter suggested "JS which runs everywhere"; that's cool, or I'd even suggest something more mundane like "shared code".
  - abathologist 12y ago
    I don't think the "it already had an established meaning" argument is very tenable, especially not when we're talking about mathematical terms. Maths freely borrows terms that have very well established meanings. E.g., "category" has an ancient and well established meaning, but that didn't stop it from being appropriated for "category theory". Category theorists also seem to have appropriated the term "categorical" even though it has a very specific and firmly established meaning in logic. "Functor" was appropriated from an established term that was in use by logicians and linguists. "Topology" was taken over from botanists. Categorial "Monads" have nothing to do with Leibniz (that I can tell), nor "arrows" with everyday arrows of any sort, and the wikipedia article on category theory even begins with the following caution: >Several terms used in category theory, including the term "morphism", differ from their uses within mathematics itself There may be other aspects of the appropriation of sexy math terms which you find problematic, but the mere act of borrowing established terms doesn't seem problematic in its own right. fwiw, I don't like JavaScript and I am interested in and partial to mathematically and logically grounded languages. otoh, I don't care what names JS developers give to their constructs either.
altano 12y ago
I'm with this guy. How about "server/client apps?" It only costs 3 characters to actually convey information.

lmao, "isomorphic"

bonif 12y ago

+1! (ok with the downvotes)

from the Greek "isos": "equal", "morph": "shape". Do you have a better suggestion? I don't see anyone complaining about the use of the word "function" instead of "subroutine".

acjohnson55 12y ago
What is the "shape" that's being referred to, and in what sense is it "equal"?
- jnmuel 12y ago
  It's essentially the opposite of polymorphism. Polymorphism says that if you look at the same thing in two different contexts you should get two different results. Isomorphism says that if you look at the same thing in two different contexts you should get the same thing. Here the contexts are server and client.
  - nox_ 12y ago
    In which universe is polymorphism the opposite of isomorphism? Couldn't we just have said "JavaScript that runs everywhere" instead of trying to sound educated?
    - aboodman 12y ago
      When you want to refer to the same concept over and over, it helps to give it a name. Other examples: ajax, lamp, nosql, soa ... they may be buzzwords, but they are helpful. I don't see the problem here.
      - nox_ 12y ago
        Isomorphism was already a word before Nodejitsu abused it. Your examples are acronyms and abbreviations. Nevermind that this concept is not even worth a name.
        aboodman 12y ago
        It is common to repurpose words this way. I think it is called 'metaphor'. See also: half the names in technology and all nearly every apple product name. Anyway, I find the term useful.
        nox_ 12y ago
        Metaphors make sense, that reusing of isomorphism doesn't, however you quote Greek words to justify your means.
jonsterling 12y ago
It's just that "isomorphism" has a very well-defined meaning, and this is essentially cargo-culting mathematical-sounding language to refer to something that has nothing to do with isomorphism at all (at least, not in the sense that the word is usually meant). You can do all the reverse etymology you want, but in the end, we all know this is just a word that JavaScript kids are using because it makes them feel cool. This sort of reminds me of when that weird kid nobody likes tries on a new nickname (like "The Chief" or "Serpent" or "T") and I have to kindly say, “Hey bingo/bud, I'm really sorry, that nickname is just not happening".
- abathologist 12y ago
  In light of my previous reply, I wonder why you think appropriation of terms is okay going one way but not the other. It really seems a bit like bullying. Why can't the weird kid call itself whatever the weird kid chooses? It seems like the job of a bully to say "no way twerp, you can't use 'The Chief', that's only for cool kids to use". I don't know why you'd willingly take on that role.
  - steego 12y ago
    No one is stopping the weird kid from reappropriating words and nobody is being bullied. People are simply objecting to a use of the word. This is no different than people objecting to using the word literally to emphasize a figurative expression. To your other point, I'm not against reappropriating words in different contexts to describe ideas metaphorically. In this particular case, isomorphic is already defined in a programming/math context. You're not so much reappropriating a definition to a new contract as you're making an existing word sound more ambiguous in the same context by diluting it. I think the reason people are so passionate about not diluting this term is because they want people to understand and really appreciate the value of isomorphisms. They're not being bullies to make themselves feel superior, they're trying to protect an idea from being misrepresented.
Havvy 12y ago
platform agnostic, environment agnostic, cross-platform. We already have words that mean exactly what is trying to convey. Taking a word that doesn't and adding it to that pool (especially when isomorphic has a meaning in mathematics and computer science already - e.g. two functions are isomorphic if for all inputs they produce the same output, even if their implementation differs) is a bad idea. Edit: And we who argue that isomorphic is not the right word for this concept already know what the word means. We also know what the words in the definition mean, and also its usage, which is as a relation between two elements in the same set. Saying something is isomorphic on its own is against the definition.

oe 12y ago

I think that's a well-established name for rendering the same JS both in the back-end and front-end. Would some other name work better?

jonsterling 12y ago
It's just really confusing, since it has literally nothing to do with the established meaning of "isomorphism". Also kind of cringe-y, since you know it's just JavaScript people trying to sound cool. Another commenter suggested "JS which runs everywhere"; that's cool, or I'd even suggest something more mundane like "shared code".
- abathologist 12y ago
  I don't think the "it already had an established meaning" argument is very tenable, especially not when we're talking about mathematical terms. Maths freely borrows terms that have very well established meanings. E.g., "category" has an ancient and well established meaning, but that didn't stop it from being appropriated for "category theory". Category theorists also seem to have appropriated the term "categorical" even though it has a very specific and firmly established meaning in logic. "Functor" was appropriated from an established term that was in use by logicians and linguists. "Topology" was taken over from botanists. Categorial "Monads" have nothing to do with Leibniz (that I can tell), nor "arrows" with everyday arrows of any sort, and the wikipedia article on category theory even begins with the following caution: >Several terms used in category theory, including the term "morphism", differ from their uses within mathematics itself There may be other aspects of the appropriation of sexy math terms which you find problematic, but the mere act of borrowing established terms doesn't seem problematic in its own right. fwiw, I don't like JavaScript and I am interested in and partial to mathematically and logically grounded languages. otoh, I don't care what names JS developers give to their constructs either.

altano 12y ago

I'm with this guy. How about "server/client apps?" It only costs 3 characters to actually convey information.