11 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Apr 2020
    1. The “universal” label that has been slapped on to it is superfluous, but it does have its merits. Now that we have a commonly known term to refer to environment agnostic JavaScript code, it allows library authors to list it as a feature and be fashionable doing it. I’m happy with the term “universal” being fashionable because it makes developers think about their dependencies on the runtime environment. In the end this will help the JavaScript ecosystem mature and allow libraries to be used everywhere.
    2. The “universal” label that has been slapped on to it is superfluous
    3. Running the same code in the browser and on the server in order to avoid code duplication is a very different problem. It is simply a matter of good development practices to avoid code duplication. This however is not limited to isomorphic applications. A utility library such as Lodash is “universal”, but has nothing to do with isomorphism. Sharing code between environments does not give you an isomorphic application. What we’re referring to with Universal JavaScript is simply the fact that it is JavaScript code which is environment agnostic. It can run anywhere. In fact most JavaScript code will run fine on any JavaScript platform.
    1. Maybe we should distinguish between: The technique of asssembling pages on either client or server. Here, “isomorphic” and “full stack” (as proposed by Rodrigo Medeiros) seem good choices. JavaScript that runs in all (or most) JavaScript environments, especially browsers and Node.js. Here, “universal” seems a good choice.