[abritinthebay]

> It really is a very wrong use of "isomorphic", though

It's really not.

> Two things can be isomorphic to each other but one thing cannot called "isomorphic" without specifying what other thing it is isomorphic to.

Good thing we're talking about the relationship of client and server code then so we're not doing that then isn't it?

> isomorphism is about those two things having the same conceptual structure, despite being different things.

Yup, still perfectly on topic here with Client vs Server...

> In math...

Ah well, there's your problem. It's nothing to do with the mathematical definition of the term.

[madeofpalk]

_Technically_, it would be more accurate to say that your client is isomorphic to your server. In that regard, the term 'isomorphic javascript' doesn't really make sense as there's nothing to compare it to.

However, everyone knows what you're talking about when you say 'isomorphic javascript', so the pedantry doesn't really matter.

[abritinthebay]

Well indeed, and "isomorphic javascript" is really just dropping the heavily implied "application" at the end.

At it’s core Isomorphic JavaScript describes the relationship between the application that runs on the server and the one it serves to the client to run.

It's perfectly correct - because it's not describing the code it's describing the application(s) and the approach they take.