The code itself is the shape of the code, to an appoximation. Isomorphic applications run the same code (or big swathes thereof) on the client and the server, so that the common core exists only in one place.
> It's not actually the "shape" that's the same, it's the HTML that it produces. It would be more accurate to call this Isohtml or Isoproduce or Isooutput apps.
A port of an application would satisfy that criteria, but would not fall under the moniker of isomorphic. If you have a better term to qualify applications with extensive to almost complete code-sharing between the client and the server, feel free to try and popularise it, but so far your demonstrations have been sorely lacking.
> People say Isomorphic when they don't know what they are saying, and want to sound smart in greek. Idiots.
The code itself is the shape of the code, to an appoximation. Isomorphic applications run the same code (or big swathes thereof) on the client and the server, so that the common core exists only in one place.
> It's not actually the "shape" that's the same, it's the HTML that it produces. It would be more accurate to call this Isohtml or Isoproduce or Isooutput apps.
A port of an application would satisfy that criteria, but would not fall under the moniker of isomorphic. If you have a better term to qualify applications with extensive to almost complete code-sharing between the client and the server, feel free to try and popularise it, but so far your demonstrations have been sorely lacking.
> People say Isomorphic when they don't know what they are saying, and want to sound smart in greek. Idiots.
Heh.