First we get a framework. That framework is missing some key functionality or features so we get plugins and eventually a meta-framework standardising the new behaviour and maybe introducing a slightly new paradigm. That meta framework gets unwieldy and we get a ground up rewrite (new framework) that trims the fat and uses the new evolved features as first class concepts.
This is exhausting only because of external and internal pressures to "keep up". I don't see anything inherently wrong with the evolution of ideas and concepts being explored in breadth and depth. Writing and publishing a new JS framework has a very low barrier which is a huge positive that I rarely see extolled compared to complaining that the ecosystem needs to constrain itself.
First we get a framework. That framework is missing some key functionality or features so we get plugins and eventually a meta-framework standardising the new behaviour and maybe introducing a slightly new paradigm. That meta framework gets unwieldy and we get a ground up rewrite (new framework) that trims the fat and uses the new evolved features as first class concepts.
This is exhausting only because of external and internal pressures to "keep up". I don't see anything inherently wrong with the evolution of ideas and concepts being explored in breadth and depth. Writing and publishing a new JS framework has a very low barrier which is a huge positive that I rarely see extolled compared to complaining that the ecosystem needs to constrain itself.