> No stable and productive framework will ever be able to compete in hype and good PR than alpha-quality software.

Huh? Stable and productive tools will let developers ship features while hyped frameworks come and go. Whatever survives and is in good shape after multiple hype cycles is surely a winner.

I get it. Yes, stable and productive frameworks would win out in a fair fight, but it isn't a fair fight. The warts in the stable, productive framework are known, and there's already mid-level devs with battle scars that are clamoring for something better than the stable, productive framework.

The alpha-quality software is all new shininess, sometimes with explicit promises of solving the warts of [STABLE FRAMEWORK]. Plus everybody seems to think that new shininess looks better on a resume.

I do not disagree. I meant that alpha software has fewer detractors, for the simple reason that few have actually used it for something serious and hit their head against all the bugs and shortcomings. On the hype metric alone, stable software just can't compete.

"There are only two kinds of languages^Hframeworks: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses."

Seems like a rewrite for the sake of a rewrite. New frameworks are exciting but if you're building a product you have to realize that's not important to your customers.

Sure if you were on PHP, a rewrite to a JS framework would be worth it, because you could deliver features to your customers faster, less bugs, etc. But once you're in the JS ecosystem, it gets much harder to justify a lateral migration like that. Like what features have they actually picked up as a result of the migration? Or are they just doing it so they can work on flashy new framework? I'm going to guess the latter.

> Sure if you were on PHP, a rewrite to a JS framework would be worth it, because you could deliver features to your customers faster, less bugs, etc.

That sounds just as much like a cargo cult thing and not actually making sense.