First chunk of Meteor auth now in GitHub
groups.google.com
groups.google.com
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.
But I didn't remember that it was named 'meteor'.
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?
Eventually starts now, I guess.
Without auth Meteor was interesting but not very useful. With auth, though, it becomes much more exciting.
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.
That's an awful curious criticism to level against a platform.
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.
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.