[jakozaur]

Yeah, one of the common critique is that "Meteor" does too much and doesn't integrate well with other stuff.

For me it's a main advantage, I don't need to use "other" stuff to get the final effect.

I wrote few projects and it's the best framework if you start from scratch. Though it's hard to swell if you need to add it later to some existing project.

[pluma]

I absolutely agree, but I don't understand why Meteor is frequently seen as a competitor to React or AngularJS or Ember. It's a competitor to combinations like node/browserify and full-stack solutions like Wakanda.

Meteor doesn't integrate with anything, but that was never a design goal. If you switch from Meteor, you can likely discard your entire stack (well, except the database obviously). It's based on node, sure, but that's an implementation detail.

Meteor is not a node-based stack. That's why it now has its won package manager instead of npm. It's a competitor to node with its own ecosystem. And that's fine.

[dmak]

Well, you can compare it as a fullstack too. It is mainly compared with React, Angular, and Ember as a reactive framework which isn't an incorrect comparison and is very valid.

[pluma]

Sure, but good luck replacing React/Angular/Ember in your Rails/Django/Node/What-have-you app with Meteor.

It's not really a relevant option unless you are at liberty to swap out the entire stack. It makes more sense to compare Meteor with MEAN rather than simply AngularJS itself.