[kaoD]

> While this is sort of a silly argument to continue

So you love silly arguments too! :P

Perhaps our "disagreement" stems from how used we are to isomorphic as a common word. My mother language is full of greek and latin loanwords/particles in common speech. If I had to guess it's not as pervasive in yours. Or maybe you've been exposed to a lot more math than me! Who knows.

I still can't help but read iso+morph separately (as equal+shape) in "isomorphic javascript".

New words are not a common occurrence, especially when existing words fit the concept (such as isomorphic = same shape; variable = its value can vary; etc.) or parallels can be drawn (function = takes arguments and computes a value; chord = probably because there is a _circle_ of fifths in music where you can draw literal chords).

I see how it can be confusing on tech fields though, but that's just how language works. You could argue there are better alternatives to "isomorphic JavaScript", but to date it's been the only proposal.

That said, I'll try to keep my linguistic creativity to a minimum in tech ;)

[tel]

Yeah... It's Wadler's Law. I accept it.

I think there's a lot of room for creativity in technical fields (étale morphism comes to mind) but typically once a word has a technical definition it is made off-limits within relevant fields. Terminological blurriness is nice sometimes, but often technical terms are incredibly concrete.

To me "isomorphism" means exactly "a pair of arrows, called witnesses, (f, g) in a category such that fg = id and gf = id" and it confers many properties. If you find a category where {Server Javascript} and {Client Javascript} are two objects and exhibit an isomorphism then I will gladly let you call that object "isomorphic javascript" all day long. Frankly I'm already feeling "isomorphism" fails to capture the nature of this relationship, though.