Frameworks increase technical debt the more they try to impose on your design

[faissaloo]

I think it should be pointed out that where there is a particular dependency it's be to look for a lighter alternative that still accomplishes the same goal but without imposing particular design patterns on the developer, so that the developer is more empowered to make changes in future. For example: Nancy over ASP.NET, Sinatra over Rails, Kemal over Amber.
What's meant by 'framework' here should also be more clearly defined, it's not clear how large the scope of what you're referring to is but I generally define frameworks as being libraries that carry design baggage.

[francesco-strazzullo]

Nice point, but I don't think that it's easy to define what a framework is. One of the definitions that I like the most is A framework calls your code, your code calls a library but it just scratches the surface of the problem.

[designarti]

I think the general perception on frameworks revolves about Bootstrap-type-of-code. So unless you wanna stick to the educated ones out there, and unless you want to take on educating people - which is an impossible task -, try to modify perception or start from Bootstrap-type. And you also need to state the scope in a clearer way. Saying you have nothing against frameworks doesn’t solve any problem. Would just be philosophic talk, nerd talk. You either assume stuff, or redefine. I am against frameworks of all types. I do internet marketing, and in my line of work I have found out the use of frameworks are behind the biggest energy loss in the history of mankind. That’s the kind of sentence you need to begin with. That’s how you solve a problem, the framework problem.

[francesco-strazzullo]

Hi @designarti I just wrote a post what I think about the definition of framework, I think that it could be related to this conversation. https://dev.to/francescostrazzullo/the-definition-of-framework-k70