This is the problem with anything written on the internet. It’s so easy to create a blog post full of unsubstantiated claims which in turn leads to hysteria.
Like most other people have said the claims are purely based on a limited understanding.
3 Likes
Hello ,
I m new to meteor since I 'm doing the University of London course and read the article of @pierre .I really like meteor and I think it’s a strong framework since I have worked with frameworks like .net and asp.net .When I reached to the course that we were showed the auto updating I was like wow!Some points though of its article make sense and some others not.For example I wouldn’t use it for a simple site or a store simple app (i prefer ionic 2)since I agree it’s pretty overkill.I would definitely use it for a site that needs regularly updates like a site with sports live score or a betting site etc.Also in a big project I would also use it .For me it’s like asp.net but with javascript instead of c# .I think it has potential but every tool must be used for a specific use and not for everything.
3 Likes
Completely agree, software development in general is about finding the right tool.
I think the main reason the author got a lot of flak, is because there’s solutions to many of the “problems” that were discussed, so it’s borderline spreading false information. It makes it seem like his opinion is very inexperienced. Contributing to this is if you look him up and see only around a week from when he first participated in the community with a question, to the time he wrote the article. This makes it seem very fishy that the title of his article was “why I don’t recommend Meteor anymore”. That implies he has recommended it on a regular basis in the past… There’s no articles of him recommending it in the past, only activity being a question right beofre the article came out… but he is publicly posting articles why he will not recommend it. People don’t want to think the worst, but how is anyone supposed to think otherwise when doing things such as that?
Then once he joined the discussion here, has seemed very defensive, and not willing to have an actual discussion about what he wrote.
Calling Meteor packages “hacks” is, of course, going to make anyone who has experience in the Meteor ecosystem feel like that’s not a fair statement. Especially if they themselves have contributed code. Most of the popular Meteor packages are actually VERY solid.
No matter what your language/framework/etc is, it’s not really possible to claim you have ‘never’ used ‘any’ packages or modules of any sort in your software. Especially if you have worked on big projects as he has claimed.
According to his definition here, than Node/NPM/Express is nothing but a library of hacks, Rails is nothing but hacks, Django, the whole React ecosystem, and even JQuery is a hack…
So this makes the “hacks” comment pretty offensive. Which is why people would like to discuss it & talk it out… but he basically shut down any chance at that and was defensive. He stuck with “It should be integrated in to the Meteor API because I don’t like hacks”… Meanwhile no framework or platform out there provides ‘everything’ you need for a complete application without using any form of module or package - aka “hacks”.
He would rather “create his own stack” - well if you are going to completely create your own without using any external packages or modules, feel free to do it. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing that in Meteor - could create a custom package, and even potentially release the “hack” for others in the community to enjoy. Does not make sense at all to knock a platform or framework because of packages it uses. Even the most popular frameworks commonly integrate user packages in to their API on a regular basis - most recently I upgraded a Django server from 2012 to modern versions, and the popular South package for migrations was integrated. Does that mean Django is built out of hacks…?
All of this just contributes to the feeling that it was merely “click bait” and a feeling that he’s intentionally being overly negative/trolling. If someone is going to write any public article, with information that could be considered as false statements, with some claims of problems that already have solutions, and call extremely popular packages “hacks” (when it’s effectively guaranteed he’s used packages or “hacks” in his own software projects), and then intentionally shuts down any discussion… it’s hard to believe there’s not some ill motives.
Anyone with an honest article would want to make sure they communicated only truthful information to their readers. Instead, it’s questionable if the article is slander or not, as there’s solutions in place for many of the issues he discusses, but he disregards them and calls them hacks, when using packages for any software/framework is commonplace in 2016… and if you are gonig to call those hacks, then you will likely have to call every past major project of his hacks…
8 Likes
Yes!
And the fact that both the server and the client have built-in to them the notion of awareness of others’ changes makes it ultimately more sophisticated, AND simple. Both client and server combine a stream of user actions, and a stream of others’ actions, and emit a stream of updates (while optionally doing some persistence). It’s functional, it’s simple, and it’s kind of SOA where the client is just another service. Which - why shouldn’t it be?