41–50 of 163 posts
Is anyone here running Meteor in production? I've seen so many intro's and demo's and prototypes but have yet to see any actual products / companies built around it yet.
- http://www.quora.com/Which-startups-use-Meteor-in-production - http://www.quora.com/What-open-source-software-uses-Meteor-f...
That's cool. Does Meteor actually make, sorry for using such a dirty word, money from something?
If you invest in 9 companies that use Meteor then investing in Meteor means you've invested in those 9 companies. It's an investment in infrastructure.
I looked into Meteor and it's amazing how everything clicks together. It's just such a drastic change in complexity and feels like a breath of fresh air. The one thing that made me drop it as the choice for a primary stack was the fact that it's tied so heavily into MongoDB. Meteor has a mongodb 'server' replicated client side, that's how they can actually make Meteor so god damn snappy, it's latancy compensation. If…
I'm apprehensive of the security model. Everything is highly ease-of-use optimized, to the point that you can query Mongo via the browser console. My preferred "easy/simple" model of app design is Firebase (backend and JS lib for pure web clients), who have security figured out.
Unlike Firebase, Meteor actually allows you to send "first top 20 guest posts from November" as an example. The filtering can happen on the server, before sending the data and the data model usually fits into a sets of documents in set of collections. In Firebase, everything is part of a big subtree that is not filterable (the last time I checked).
Firebase is a good choice for keeping your real-time data. But knowing its limitations is as important as knowing its strengths.
I've also used angular, which I also like, but has a little bit more of a learning curve drawback.
I do unfortunately believe that a project or framework should make it not because it's CEO or leader is good at selling something, pitching VC's, and creating a brand, I think a project or framework should make it because it is the crowdsourced best solution to a problem. And this kind of money raising worries me a little, because it gives an unfair advantage to a framework. Now meteor might be the best answer, but if it's not, this is a shame and we all stand to miss out on a potential right answer for this...
Anyway, all of this is a little moot because I believe you shouldn't be using javascript for this kind of stuff ^^ but that's another debate altogether
I'm actually looking into meteor at the moment, and the financial backing is a big plus, as it gives me some guarantee that the project will keep being maintained for the foreseeable future. It is indeed a breeze to prototype applications with it, but I am a little bit concerned about the costs of getting an actual production ready site with it. For intance, when is it ever OK to let your client write directly in the…
Do yourself a favor and set aside a weekend to go through this book: https://www.discovermeteor.com/ All of your questions are answered there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sidebar.io is based on Telescope which powers a number of sites: http://sidebar.io/
Hmm. Sidebar is an example of a site that has no reason to use client-side scripting at all. It's a plain list of links, and yet doesn't work without Javascript, and is far, far slower than it should be.
What happens to Meteor if Galaxy fails as a commercial endeavour?
https://github.com/meteor/meteor is open source, so the community will be tasked with maintenance in the case of MDG running out of money.
Bless me with your downvotes Meteor zealots! I'll still be here when Meteor is has gone the way of Flash and ColdFusion.
At least judging by www.meteor.com, they are still insisting their users accept the risks[1] of javascript and sending an empty body tag.
[1] If you think these risks don't exist, you haven't been paying attention. I don't care if you want to run exploit code from an ad or be used as ammunition by the Great Cannon; just don't insist that others must accept that risk if they want to read your page (slower loads or reduced functionality with the javascript is perfectly fine).
edit:
So you all value convenience over safety. really, it's probably because you're so used to spying on people that the idea of losing that ability is a thought you cannot abide. After all, why would the idea of losing javascript be attacked so strongly? This gets downvotes faster than anything else. What a lot of website developers don't seem to understand is that recording hover times, click paths, reading times and the like may be "metrics" or "important business data" to you, to normal people that is "creepy peeping-tom" behavior.
I know, you're thinking that this is off topic, or that it's just a tool. No, you're making a political/sociological decision by forcing people to take the risk of javascirpt - and business recording information about people is risk #1.
The non-technical people I know, after slowly learning about how the tech industry really works, have been doing a lot to reduce their internet use. A few have turned luddite. Others are trying to reduce their dependence on network services. That is the end game of people finding out the real price of using some webapp - you're driving people away from the entire concept.
Of course, I'm wasting my breath - clearly the features of some tool are more important than the reality of the future you're creating.
Either that, or djb is right. ( http://cr.yp.to/talks/2015.05.08/slides-djb-20150508-a4.pdf )