Some good history of the JS ecosystem here but the underlying message is all the same, frameworks scale and provide structure but you don't need them. Very easy to agree up to this point.

Author then elaborates in the absence of using a common-knowledge framework you can create some tighter solution that achieves just the part you need. This is "fun" programming, and the author is suitably impressed with themselves for solving problems they created just by convincing themself not to use a framework. Sometimes that's fine, although I don't think there's much appetite for this anymore.

Article doesn't really elaborate on what "scaling" and "providing structure" means, I think it downplays the benefits because when you use <framework> you are really establishing ground rules for how all future developers are going to work on that software. You don't know exactly what they'll write, but you know they'll always gravitate towards the top 2 or 3 solutions for that framework at any given time.

When you bust out a bespoke solution that carves out that one thing you needed and does it oh so elegantly and perfectly, you're creating art but most of the canvas is left blank for future developers and they're effectively going to scribble on it with crayons.

I wish there was some sort of "use strict-typed" or something that let you use in-browser interpreted typescript

Did anyone else notice the pattern that ever since the LLMs got popular the "I hate javascript" kind of posts or comments have decreased?

It could be attributed also to typescript dominance of course, since people don't use plain js anymore.

As for the blog post, I agree, I also implemented my own js framework when I code in vanilla js and it works fine.

The problem is not inventing frameworks, the problem is that everyone invents frameworks, so people all know different things and they are hard to hire.

Any framework that requires me to learn custom syntax, is a problem in my opinion. I agree with the author that the browser is already the framework, and a powerful one at that. I don't really struggle with views and dom thanks to my own libraries, so maybe those without appreciate thw guilded gardens of these frameworks. Problem is that if these frameworks fall out of favour or stray from their original quality, you're stuck with worthless knowledge and maybe code as well

This hit so close to home. For the last eight months I've been building a web app without any major framework like react or angular. Angular taught me a lot of important lessons about best practices for structuring UI. But eventually you run into boilerplate that doesn't jive with what you want to do.

The author frames this as artificial complexity, and that's the best framing I've seen. The browser has a particular presentation philosophy and the more you try to cover it up, the more awkward your code becomes at the edges.

The killer application of LLMs is their ability to inform and adapt to a particular API, and analyze the code that you write. They are garbage at producing functionality for which they don't have a thousand examples, but provide documentation and intent and they will help you fill in the gaps. This is the real 10x opportunity, and the best part is that you can still write all the code yourself.

I'm certain this doesn't just apply to javascript and the web. I predict that the need for frameworks will slowly go away.