Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think it's right to lump Meteor and Firebase together as you've done here. They are similar and the sets of problems they aim to solve may overlap. But Firebase is a "scalable backend for your web app" and Meteor "is a set of technologies for building web apps". Firebase is more like a platform and Meteor is more like a framework, or SDK if you like.

If you want to get a web app up and running quickly without having to build a backend, Firebase would be an option.

With Meteor, one advantage is that you can write your client code as if you were building a desktop app, i.e. with minimal context switching. You can imagine the database is local and that any methods you call on the server are like calls to a local library with a well-defined API. Meteor would provide the glue between client and server that allows you to do this.

Regarding your question: "Can Meteor/Firebase be secure without adding back in a lot of the server-side effort that they were built to avoid?" I think the Firebase founder commented somewhere on this post on how they might do this. But for Meteor, (1) I don't think the goal is merely to reduce server-side effort (2), I expect Meteor would provide much of this out of the box and you wouldn't have to do more on the server than you would with say Express or Rails.




You're right, I probably shouldn't have lumped them together. My question is probably more applicable to Firebase since they explicitly state that a goal is to eliminate servers (or at least make them optional).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: