> What's wrong with making the framework easier to use?

Vendor lock in. Magic leaky abstractions are great until you need to debug something a few layers down when the magic stops working.

> how else do you want framework development to happen?

Loosely affiliated open source efforts maybe. If that doesn't work, I would prefer to have none at all.

▲

fragmede 5 days ago | parent [-]

> If that doesn't work, I would prefer to have none at all.

While we would all like to retire to a cabin in the woods and be a carpenter, and for corporations not to exist, that seems unrealistic.

Magic leaky abstractions are orthogonal to vendor-lock in, and the source is open, so I'm not seeing the lock-in part. The "hey it's easier and cheaper to smash the deploy-to-vercel"-in, sure, but things cost money. Either to a developer, or to a company.

	▲	recursive 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I never claimed my preferences were realistic! Stuff costs money, sure. But I don't think it's that simple. Next and Vercel come from the same organization. I have no objection to a paid hosting solution making it operationally simpler. However when that same org has control over the free thing, they can make it even more easier (probably grammatical! who knows) that it would have "naturally" been.