The argument about looking at technical fit doesn't come through. Very few people, "professionals", view it like that. Instead almost everyone defaults to their stack and views it as mandatory. I've been working for a long time, and I'd like to think I can manage to learn a new framework (and like most people, I implement something as a small project to learn something new occasionally), but in reality if I don't work with React every day professionally for n years, most people will not look at my work. In certain cases "the right tool for the right job" might make sense, but I'd argue that it really doesn't matter here, as all of these tools do the same job. If some do it better than the others they should win out, but the term better is very broad and complex, to the point it was successfully argued that worse is better.

I don't like to criticize too much any more, but I think in general this is a poor article. It doesn't really tell us anything other than latching onto someone else's opinion -- Rich Harris told us virtual dom is pure overhead, ok, but what's your opinion -- or referring to technical debt with React, as if it doesn't exist in every other project, or vaguely complaining about suffocating something.

I mean the job of these frameworks is to update a page when you change state. That's it. If the world has decided React is good enough in all or many aspects of using it, so be it. If The Guardian rewrote something in Svelte and nobody noticed the improvement that apparently objectively exist, what's the point?