3 ms·
This article really does nothing to contribute to the discourse on Meteor. At best it would be a reasonable comment, but the content isn't worthy of an article.
by konspence 13y ago
This article really does nothing to contribute to the discourse on Meteor. At best it would be a reasonable comment, but the content isn't worthy of an article.
The author admits to not having used Meteor (in any real way), but then goes on to defend it for ideological reasons: don't just say something is doomed to failure, because we cannot predict whether it's the next Rails/Node/etc.
Target the framework you're writing about specifically. This article would be just as valid in its logic if you replaced the word Meteor with any underdog library/framework.
- 1qaz2wsx3edc 13y agoAgreed, the article should have been a comment in the previous thread. It seems to be a popular trend on HN: when an author will write something that reaches the front page; moments later you'll see a counter article from the opposing point. My only issue with this trend, is the low quality posts we see out of it, which are just attempting to steal some thunder so-to-speak. Sometimes you get valuable rebuttals. I just feel like most of the time these counter-point posts could just be comments in the original thread. This author, go on to quote the thread (albeit plagiarizing) the comments, and what do we have at the end of it. A link to sign up to their Mailing List. I'm unimpressed & annoyed by this post. But I love Meteor & Rails.