When a developer starts a new javascript project he/she is stuck with the task of choosing from an array of frameworks, backends, libraries, bundlers, etc.
Also, like jQuery, Meteor is doing something in the opposite direction as all of these other frameworks. Rather than being just one piece of the pie and leaving the rest up to the developer, it simplifies development end-to-end (in theory).
If this is true then no wonder meteor hasn't gained the popularity they were hoping for. Webforms just tries to put this layer of abstraction over the web, which severely limits its flexibility, and means you are developing against webworms as opposed to the web itself. I know some people and companies are willing to make that trade off because they want the rapid development benefits, but I think the majority of experienced developers understand the long-term drawbacks to this scenario.
re: popularity of jquery... jquery makes it easier for you to interact with the DOM. WebForms (and maybe meteor? I don't know) makes it HARDER to interact with the DOM.
When a developer starts a new javascript project he/she is stuck with the task of choosing from an array of frameworks, backends, libraries, bundlers, etc.
Also, like jQuery, Meteor is doing something in the opposite direction as all of these other frameworks. Rather than being just one piece of the pie and leaving the rest up to the developer, it simplifies development end-to-end (in theory).