Earlier quoted context omitted.
Math and CS are close enough that I think they should be nice neighbors and respect one another's terminology. I use the mathematical term "isomorphism" daily almost hourly while programming.
> should [...] respect one another's terminology I see your point, but IMHO isomorphic is a word, not math terminology. Math borrows words from regular languages, but it can't expropriate words! The first thing I think when reading "isomorphic" is "same shape" even though I know what a math isomorphism is. Just notice how function means something completely different in programming and math, but we're so used that no…
And the use of "function" in computer science for things which are hardly at all functions is a source of massive confusion and pain in the interface between the two fields. I believe personally that it leads to an enormous amount of improper education and broken intuition.
Let me provide another example—variable. This one is far worse than "function" in the confusion caused by its poor appropriation into computer science. The concept of variable is extremely well-designed in mathematics crafted over hundreds of years of philosophical and mathematical debate... and then it also become a mutable slot in Algol and stuck to every mathematician's chagrin.
It's not a good idea to copy technical words and abuse them in similar fields. It'd be as though people in the airplane industry started calling propellers "rockets" all over. Rocket comes from Italian "rocchetto" meaning bobbin/cylinder and so the shape of a propeller engine fits that definition and words are just words right?
Certainly, but that's just unnecessarily confusing. The person who popularized that terminology would be rightfully considered a fool.