Hacker News Reader

Comment by bijection | Hacker News Reader

FWIW 'isomorphic javascript' was pretty much supplanted by 'universal javascript' last year per this medium post [1]. You might consider changing the copy.

Edit: At the very least Dan Abramov (Redux creator) is ok with universal [2]

[1] https://medium.com/@mjackson/universal-javascript-4761051b7a...

[2] https://github.com/gaearon/react-redux-universal-hot-example

View on HN

FWIW those of us in the JavaScript community who don't care to create buzzwords for everything call it JavaScript. No Isomorphic, no Universal. There's nothing different. It's just JavaScript.

> There's nothing different.

It's still JavaScript, but how you design/write it is fundamentally different when you're writing for both the client and server.

No the libraries you use are different.

On the client you wouldn't use `fs` module, but on the server you wouldn't use jQuery unless you were manipulating the dom through scraping with Cheerios.

Many people still don't agree, neither do I. There's no doubt that the term "universal" is more correct, however, languages don't work that way. In the JS land isomorphic has a very specific meaning. Universal is a flexible word. "A universal api for observables" means something (works across libraries), "An isomorphic api for observables" means something else (works across environments) .

FWIW no it wasn't. Everyone (everyone who javascripts anyways) already knows what "isomorphic javascript" means, and "Universal" is a fucking terrible name for what it is being applied to (it sounds like it is translated into all languages, or runs equally on Windows and Macs, or who knows, it's made for aliens or something).

Universal JavaScript is incorrect. There are more JS runtimes than Node and the Browser. Does React run in Postgres? In Duktape?

Lets not get caught in 'war of words'. There is no standard to it and I don't think it matters as long as you understand what it means.

> There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.

> -- Phil Karlton

I like the self referential version:

"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."

> as long as you understand what it means.

Isn't the whole effect of litterary words to be specific but exclusive?

I was under the impression that the community as a whole had agreed to switch to that term as well. :( Given your name I reckon you feel strongly about this, too.

But isomorphic sounds cooler...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com