I think the missed or perhaps unspoken observation in this thread is that if the language provides it, and you're using it, you're tying yourself to the language, which tends to last a lot longer than frameworks.

Switching languages obviously requires a rewrite. But you aren't also rewriting the framework integration too. Some languages have work-alike frameworks, but they aren't ever exactly the same behavior and semantics. There are always subtle but important differences.

A clean pattern does not emerge naturally with a polyglot stack, as multiple languages with many library dependencies only lead to maintenance issues, duplicated code, and kludges.

I guess my point was that while it is sometimes necessary to pipe messages though multiple languages & platforms under special circumstances (see BSON over AMQP post above alluding to decomposing multiple hardware-dependent programs/codecs into a standardized cluster API.) In general, it is cleaner to have a simple distributed framework that hides the fact it is _not_ a monolith from _most_ developers.

We can agree to disagree on this matter, as everyone's use-case differs. =)