

First chunk of Meteor auth now in GitHub - shawndrost
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/meteor-core/g4Bsm3yFTe4

======
X-Istence
For those of us that don't spend every waking moment on Hacker News and thus
have no idea what Meteor is, could someone please give a quick rundown of what
this is and what it means and why I should care?

~~~
tomblomfield
It was one of the all-time biggest product launches on Hacker News, with 1300+
upvotes.

It's a realtime JavaScript framework that makes it very simple to sync data
between multiple clients and a server. When data changes, views are
automatically updated and re-rendered.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3824908>

~~~
codebaobab
OK, now that you bring it up, yeah, I remember that.

But I didn't remember that it was named 'meteor'.

------
davidroetzel
I am surprised that the collective hn memory seems to fail so terribly.

When Meteor was announced, people upvoted and commented like crazy. There was
genuine excitement. A lot of people saw the potential for this being the next
Ruby on Rails.

The commenters (including me at the time) only found two major flaws with
Meteor: a) the license was too restrictive for a framework and b)
security/authentication was still missing.

The Meteor team fixed a) right away and now they finally address b).

For me this means I am finally going to spend some time digging deeper into
Meteor. And I thought people here would be similarly excited.

Do people here really forget that quickly, or is it just the weekend?

------
mibbitier
context? What is this and why should anyone care?

~~~
mwill
When Meteor was released it was floating on the front page of HN for a while
and attracted a lot of attention. One of the biggest criticisms people had was
the total lack of authentication, which the developers said would be released
eventually.

Eventually starts now, I guess.

~~~
blutonium
Was it really? Many frameworks don't offer much beyond HTTP basic.

~~~
tomblomfield
The issue with Meteor was that all clients have full write access to the
server-side database, including other users' data. Which is problematic, to
say the least.

~~~
cmelbye
This actually isn't true. One can easily remove the "autopublish" package to
disable the behavior of publishing all data to the client, and selectively
publish only certain records to the client. Then, all client-side database
modification methods can be disabled, and using server-side functions, an
authentication system can be built and you can build your application's logic.

------
SoftwareMaven
This is almost identical to what we were doing at Bungie Labs in 2008, except
Meteor is much better. Bungie suffered from defining their own language (they
didn't think this could be done in JavaScript); having a proprietary, web-
based IDE; not having self-managed deployments; and being too early in the
market (and probably some other stuff, too).

Without auth Meteor was interesting but not very useful. _With_ auth, though,
it becomes much more exciting.

------
daulex
This is the future of hackathons, free code days and weekend dev marathons.

Yet I'm not sure how soon any serious company will trust it with serious
applications.

I'm not putting it down, this is incredible progress, the money (x millions in
funding) behind it will give it a good amount of momentum, but it just seems a
bit too easy, a bit too gimmicky to be taken seriously. I hope I'm wrong.

~~~
akavi
_a bit too easy_

That's an awful curious criticism to level against a platform.

~~~
dools
Do you mean awfully curious?

~~~
FreakLegion
See 'flat adverbs':

[http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&lpg=PA451&...](http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&lpg=PA451&dq=%22flaunt%22&as_brr=3&pg=PA451#v=onepage&q&f=false)

~~~
scoot
The fact that flat adverbs exist doesn't make this usage correct. The fact
that it's incorrect however doesn't warrant comment. We all know what the
writer intended.

~~~
dools
I found it genuinely ambiguous. I guess I'm not used to read "American
English".

~~~
FreakLegion
The link in my previous post has more background. Daniel Defoe, Jonathan
Swift, John Dryden, Jane Austen and so on were hardly writing in "American
English." In fact the non-ly adverb is a relic of Anglo-Saxon declension and
is present in all modern Englishes, much like the few remaining English
accusatives ("him," "her," "them", etc.).

Contrary to the comment above, "awful curious" isn't incorrect usage. It's
only ambiguous if you start from the assumption of an error (missing
punctuation, missing conjunction, or missing -ly).

English is rich with similar constructions that are widely mistaken for errors
due to prescriptions in basic style guides, which is about as far as most
folks' knowledge of the language extends. Another common one is the comma
splice, which isn't an error as long as you know to call it _asyndeton_ or
_parataxis_.

~~~
scoot
With a few noted exceptions (often where the -ly form has another meaning)
flat adverbs are considered archaic at best. That the examples you cite are
from early modern English is hardly surprising - American English usage did
not develop in complete isolation from its roots.

That occasional use of this earlier form has persisted in American English
dialect is also unsurprising; there are other examples of anachronistic
language forms, often in slang, topolect or sociolect, where common usage has
otherwise died out.

The GP poster correctly observes that non-standard use of flat adverbs is more
common in American English, sometimes associated with a "deep South" topolect.

Yes flat adverbs still exist in common and accepted usage, usually for good
reason, but this does not make using just any adverb in plain form "correct",
or less jarring to the educated ear, unless done so for stylistic reasons
(which was not the case here).

I still feel the correction was unwarranted in this particular social context,
but perhaps that's just me.

