[FooBarWidget]

The author says that Meteor is a framework that is "pretty similar" to Rails, but that is not true.

Meteor is totally different and strongly geared towards "real-time"[1] responses, unifying client-server code bases and automatic state propagation to all connected clients.

Rails embodies convention over configuration and the don't-repeat-yourself principle. It's ecosystem is generally geared towards server-side processing, although there is nothing inherent in Rails itself that would make it a bad choice for single-page apps with "real-time" responses.

Meteor is much more useful than Rails for certain classes of applications, but likewise Rails is much more useful than Meteor for other classes of applications.

[1] I don't like this word. This is what "real-time" should mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing

[dasil003]

Even though I agree with your overall sentiment, one of Meteor's selling points seems to be that it brings more convention to the wild west world of Node. In that regard it shares at least one of Rails values.

[aioprisan]

he was using real-time in the context of web applications

[FooBarWidget]

It is exactly the use of the word real-time in the context of web apps, that I find silly.

[hderms]

It's called soft-realtime. The difference is well known, and you getting offended about it isn't going to do anything for anyone.

[FooBarWidget]

It isn't even soft realtime. Go read up on what soft realtime really is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing#Criteria_f...