4 ms·

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?

by oe 12y ago

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.

4 ms·

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?

by 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.