As someone who has been trying to spread the word on Opal for a few years (including this talk http://funkworks.blogspot.com/2014/01/opal-new-hope-for-ruby... for full affect, For watching the video I would start with the uncensored https://vimeo.com/82573680 and then switch to http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GH9... when it's done), it surprises how little interest the Ruby community has taken in opal.

I would in part attribute this to not enough documentation and examples, but otherwise I'm surprised.

This is about as comprehensive a list of opal resources as exists ATM

This is the resources link I forgot to post http://metaruby.com/t/opal-resources/201

I think the term is isomorphic, but I am not sure.

For Ruby you can look at http://voltframework.com - uses Opal underneath.

I believe isomorphic has fallen out of favor (as it's being reclaimed for its original specific meaning) compared to Universal.

on HN maybe. Nowhere else.

Perhaps but it won't help it's case that it's actually wrong. Isomorphic is correct - they share similar structures but often aren't the exact same.

Universal implies a level of parity on server and client that just isn't there in almost all apps that are isomorphic.

It's just plain wrong.

To be fair, on that front, Clojure is a dramatically more simple language. edn is a really well defined set of primitives.

Ruby has an incredible amount of cruft, gotchas, and a massive stdlib.