Getting Meteor to 1.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Getting Meteor to 1.0

#51

Post by emgee3 » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 11:42 PM UTC

parasj wrote: post #24

sonnym wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to like meteor. It sounds like the installation script, aside from handling the MongoDB and node setup, could be treated like a typical node package. Based on the fact that meteor has no package.json, seemingly none of those core packages are installed via npm either. I may be alone in this, but I guess I would just prefer if my web framework expected me to have the interpreter and database installed, and used…

Meteor does feel a little heavy (especially when you get around to deploying it) but take a look at demeteorizer, at https://github.com/onmodulus/demeteorizer It converts Meteor apps into more traditional node.js with a package.json

Demeteorizer is a offensively named script that automatically builds a package.json for you. It doesn't make Meteor apps lighter weight or anything like that. It simply makes it easier for you to install the requisite npm dependencies.

Re: Getting Meteor to 1.0

#52

Post by emgee3 » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 11:49 PM UTC

sonnym wrote: post #11

geoffschmidt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meteor is a lot more than an npm package. For example, if you type these four commands.. $ curl https://install.meteor.com | /bin/sh; meteor create myapp; cd myapp; meteor you're up and running with a complete stack including MongoDB, node, the dozen-ish core packages that make up the Meteor pubsub and realtime templating stack, and the 'meteor' build tool (which can do things like compile coffeescript and less, gene…

I want to like meteor. It sounds like the installation script, aside from handling the MongoDB and node setup, could be treated like a typical node package. Based on the fact that meteor has no package.json, seemingly none of those core packages are installed via npm either. I may be alone in this, but I guess I would just prefer if my web framework expected me to have the interpreter and database installed, and used…

While it would be trivially easy to port the Meteor installer to npm, since Meteor doesn't require node or npm to be installed, it would be a step backward to do so.

Meteor is built against specific node and npm versions and the install script installs the necessary node binaries.

Considering what Meteor brings a developer, getting hung up on the install method is missing the big picture.

Re: Getting Meteor to 1.0

#53

Post by mr_luc » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:49 AM UTC

mr_luc wrote: post #39

sonnym wrote: post #3

After seeing the first, extremely slick demo of meteor, I was, as I believe a lot of people were, extremely excited to see where the project would go. Then came the funding, and some twelve or sixteen months of development, and I finally decided to dive in. I really wanted to like it. I was predisposed to do so. But from the very beginning, I was confronted with something I consider a deal breaker. While I am wary an…

Thank you. Saying that Node has a package manager is a huge understatement. Node has one hell of a package manager, but you have to hack[1] around Meteor to use npm modules, even in the latest version. My impression of Meteor, and the impression a number of node people seem to share, and which I've seen reinforced on HN, is: Meteor is in an almost adversarial relationship with the node.js open-source community, becau…

Hmm. I've actually changed my mind, (though not about their rejection of npm) -- after digging around, I see that there's been more communication about how Meteor plans to make money, and hearing that they have feasible plans that don't sound like a conflict of interest with open source is better than any technical argument for assuaging concerns.

But about me 'imputing bad motives', or whatever -- I said "worry", and "almost adversarial", and I stand by that.

When a company pops up and says "Hi, we're from Silicon Valley, and we have a plan to monetize a framework made from your language of choice; we have VC funding and we leap-frogged similar community frameworks -- now, if you want to write apps with the new hotness, please use our new package manager instead of the excellent community one, and don't install our framework with the community standard method either" ...

You worry. You just do. I think that meteor/derby/etc style app dev is the future, so I'm worried by anything that might threaten to lock it down.

I'm glad to see that upon investigation that worry is diminished, though. And obviously I applaud your efforts in advancing that future (I just wish that it were done in an 'npm install meteor' way).

Re: Getting Meteor to 1.0

#54

Post by jaredsohn » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 5:02 AM UTC

mr_luc wrote: post #53

mr_luc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Saying that Node has a package manager is a huge understatement. Node has one hell of a package manager, but you have to hack[1] around Meteor to use npm modules, even in the latest version. My impression of Meteor, and the impression a number of node people seem to share, and which I've seen reinforced on HN, is: Meteor is in an almost adversarial relationship with the node.js open-source community, becau…

Hmm. I've actually changed my mind, (though not about their rejection of npm) -- after digging around, I see that there's been more communication about how Meteor plans to make money, and hearing that they have feasible plans that don't sound like a conflict of interest with open source is better than any technical argument for assuaging concerns. But about me 'imputing bad motives', or whatever -- I said "worry", an…

Out of curiosity, I tried doing an 'npm install meteor' and found that it actually exists right now (but it perhaps isn't official, it hasn't been kept up to date (meteor 0.5.2 compared to the current 0.6.6), and I don't know if it is equivalent to installing meteor the official way).