3 ms·

How does that cause grief? That's called "context" and language has it. Isomorphic here is being used in the already existing biological sense. Just because th

How does that cause grief? That's called "context" and language has it. Isomorphic here is being used in the already existing biological sense. Just because the HN commenting user base is largely ignorant of non-mathmatics terms (a problem) doesn't make it wrong. In fact it's very applicable. Fitting pretty much perfectly with what is going on.

pluma 11y ago
Except contexts aren't as clear cut. As humans we tend to switch contexts all the time often even within the same conversation. We also frequently nest contexts, which works fine as long as the vocabulary of each context doesn't overlap too much. Terms like "isomorphic" and "transparent" are ambiguous, especially if you're not familiar with their use in the active context, even more so if you're already familiar with their use in a different context and most definitely if you weren't aware you just switched contexts and the term has a defined meaning in the active context: "evolution is just a theory" comes to mind (the speaker obviously not being aware that "theory" in the context in which evolution is called one is something very different from the colloquial definition they are familiar with). I'm not arguing we shouldn't use the term "isomorphic". The context in which "isomorphic" is used in the web sense and that in which it is used in the mathematical sense are unlikely to overlap as frequently as the most vocal opponents would claim. I'm just pointing out that the ambiguity is real and that it will continue to be a problem until the definition in the context of web applications (or any environment-agnostic application, really) becomes widely enough known that programmers only familiar with the mathematical definition stop being confused and see it as what it is: a new piece of jargon they have to learn if they want to join the discussion.
- abritinthebay 11y ago
  > "I'm just pointing out that the ambiguity is real" It's only ambiguous in the sense that science has been "ambiguously" using it correctly for decades. Somehow it's survived. > "it will continue to be a problem until the definition in the context of web applications becomes widely enough known" Which - outside of complaining about it in HN comments - it has. Hell there are entire startups and B2B companies that use it now. Isomorphic has been used in this form for 5 years. Yes, maybe you could argue it was AirBnB that popularized it 2 years ago but that's still a damn long time of common usage. That ship has sailed - long ago - any programmer who doesn't know what it means at this point just isn't paying attention.

pluma 11y ago

Except contexts aren't as clear cut. As humans we tend to switch contexts all the time often even within the same conversation. We also frequently nest contexts, which works fine as long as the vocabulary of each context doesn't overlap too much. Terms like "isomorphic" and "transparent" are ambiguous, especially if you're not familiar with their use in the active context, even more so if you're already familiar with their use in a different context and most definitely if you weren't aware you just switched contexts and the term has a defined meaning in the active context: "evolution is just a theory" comes to mind (the speaker obviously not being aware that "theory" in the context in which evolution is called one is something very different from the colloquial definition they are familiar with). I'm not arguing we shouldn't use the term "isomorphic". The context in which "isomorphic" is used in the web sense and that in which it is used in the mathematical sense are unlikely to overlap as frequently as the most vocal opponents would claim. I'm just pointing out that the ambiguity is real and that it will continue to be a problem until the definition in the context of web applications (or any environment-agnostic application, really) becomes widely enough known that programmers only familiar with the mathematical definition stop being confused and see it as what it is: a new piece of jargon they have to learn if they want to join the discussion.

abritinthebay 11y ago
> "I'm just pointing out that the ambiguity is real" It's only ambiguous in the sense that science has been "ambiguously" using it correctly for decades. Somehow it's survived. > "it will continue to be a problem until the definition in the context of web applications becomes widely enough known" Which - outside of complaining about it in HN comments - it has. Hell there are entire startups and B2B companies that use it now. Isomorphic has been used in this form for 5 years. Yes, maybe you could argue it was AirBnB that popularized it 2 years ago but that's still a damn long time of common usage. That ship has sailed - long ago - any programmer who doesn't know what it means at this point just isn't paying attention.