No, not at all. It's the other way around, really. Those who don't use Meteor for their projects may not be able to without trashing existing codebases.
What I'm hearing is that Meteor doesn't play well with others and that you should make the decision to go with Meteor carefully since changing your mind later will require a ground-up refactor.
This is pretty much my experience as someone who started working on a project where the lead dev had decided to use Meteor and then quit leaving a wonky prototype with "reactive data", poor performance and missing functionality.
Now, some would say "it's not Meteors fault the UI wasn't made well!" and then I'd reply "sure, but if Meteor didn't encourage (and it seems, require) tight coupling of the data access and presentation layers, then maybe we wouldn't have spent the last 3 weeks rebuilding the entire app from the ground up just to add some missing functionality and fix UI bugs".
Honestly, I really can't figure out the lack criticism I see of Meteor around here. All these comments to congratulate on an arbitrary step in version number? I see other articles of accomplishment with a fraction of the positive encouragement and many times the criticisms. Is there a silent majority, or did I spend the last few months being underwhelmed by Meteor because I'm missing something?
Meteor embodies, for me, a tool that makes things 'easy', rather than one that makes things 'simple'.
Meteor does make things easier, by making things simpler.
It is much simpler dealing with Meteor's API's then working with documentation from 3 or 4 different frameworks that you need to accomplish the same kind of stuff Meteor does.
Meteor gives you a set of clean coherent APIS to work with to get stuff done.
A lot of criticism of "new shiny tech" gets downvoted/flagged on HN so people don't even bother anymore, while another useless library in Go/Javascript gets pushed to the top of the front page.
