Earlier quoted context omitted.
woah woah hold on there young one This isn't that. My hostile working definition of a framework is something that . breaks core assumptions about a language or system . limits what a user is permitted to do . increases complexities by adding new abstractions . has non-specific specifications by using unclear and imprecise language At the end you are hardly writing software. Instead you're deep into a world of new abs…
That reads like a parody to me - the cynical engineer that uses conspirational thinking patterns to create a narrative of the world when emergent outcomes are the causes. Look for counterexamples where your cause incentives don’t exist yet the same outcomes still do: that is scientific thinking. > Job security by ensuring brittle applications > Endless tasks by ensuring endless complexity > A sense of elitism and ent…
This phenomena can also happen organically.
All these things are tools and you can wrestle with tools or have them make life easier.
The question is about in what direction this tools assuage the creative process.
I've had the luck of seeing and being involved in codebases to both billion dollar successes and million dollar moneypits.
There's certainly patterns and difference I've seen.
The most notable one is successes seen to use a lot of boring unexciting old software with ugly websites.
Like say emacs, that's got an ugly old site. Or what about GCC? How about the Apache site? It doesn't even hype up how amazing and easy your life is with their simple and elegant efficient masterpiece. What about debian.org? FFTW? PCRE? Sqlite? imagemagick?
Now compare this with react and vue.
One is "we have this tool" and the other makes lofty emotional pleas about your relationship with your work. They're fundamentally different approaches and thus have fundamentally different outcomes.
One accomplishes a goal while the other accomplishes an affectation.