Call me traumatized by the Web framework wars, but this seems like the path back to some of the issues that HTMX is trying to solve.
There is a strong developer instinct to "simplify through complexity". That is, to stuff down so much functionality and saw off all edges in an effort to hide complexity. "Let's expose a simple interface that will allow devs to do everything they want to do."
It starts with good intentions and initially provides some improvements in productivity. But it continues to evolve to the point of untenability: the complexity starts to ooze out and become a thing to manage, but with abstractions that make it more difficult; the framework becomes so opinionated that it begins to stifle; performance issues are introduced as we drift farther from the metal.
We continue to try to solve with newer constructs and abstractions, frequently introducing more issues. Eventually, it comes full circle ("hey, let's add SSR!"), and we're again looking for another solution. One that's simpler.
Then the cycle starts over again.
I think there is an inflection point with all of these things, wherein whatever perceived productivity gains are had by pushing more functionality into the framework quietly begins the path to regression. I don't exactly know where it is, but I would bet that it happens far sooner than we suspect.
So, I kind of like HTMX where it is, in spirit and implementation. Whatever additional productivity I can pick up via helper functionality and reuse is something I believe there is value in devs doing on their own, for their individual use cases and preferences. There's a tendency to think "well why reinvent the wheel? Let's make it a framework". I've come to believe that impulse is somewhat pernicious in its effect. Ultimately we're going to have to write our own code at some point. I'd suggest that we're better off doing it much sooner than frameworks encourage.