Misconceptions about Meteor
themeteorbook.com
themeteorbook.com
Agreed; this is now a myth because it was based on the pre-0.5 implementation state.
> Myth #2: “Meteor is bad for SEO”
I'm pretty skeptical about PhantomJS, but I guess it could work. I tried using it on my Meteor site, and PhantomJS failed because I use the HTML5 audio feature ("new Audio()") and apparently PhantomJS doesn't implement it. Which parts of HTML5 can we use on a Meteor site if we want it to also be spiderable?
> Myth #3: “Meteor doesn’t support third-party packages”
I want and need to use NPM packages, and this is the largest downside of Meteor for me at the moment. When people say this, they're talking about NPM packages, and I think it's disingenuous to point to Atmosphere as a disproof.
> Myth #4: “Meteor is a walled garden”
Again, I think this is a problem that actually exists and should be owned. If, as you suggest, the solution is "we're going to support NPM packages later and the developers just haven't got around to doing the work yet", then phrase it that way instead of saying that the complaint represents a myth.
> Myth #5: “Meteor is only for prototyping”
This complaint seems approximately correct, and your rebuttal doesn't even disagree with it; you just say "yes, that's because it's only a year old". That means it's not a myth.
Sorry to write a griping reply. I love Meteor and want to continue to use it for new apps. Your argument style of taking the strongest criticisms of a project and declaring them to all be a set of misconceptions strikes me as arrogant and unproductive, though. (In every case other than "Myth #1".)
Look elsewhere if you want an SEO friendly JS framework.
Most of the browserify modules are in NPM (see https://npmjs.org/package/buffer-browserify for an example) so the meteor justification is far from satisfactory.