I don't get the point of this article. It posits the usage of small independent tools as a problem, and then provides solutions to the problem that are not muc

I don't get the point of this article. It posits the usage of small independent tools as a problem, and then provides solutions to the problem that are not much more than prepackaged combinations of these tools and therefore were made possible entirely by these tools being small and independent. But these tools are apparently also bad because you need to think to use them, and write config files to tell them what you want from them. This doesn't make any sense. The ecosystem is working as it's supposed to be working. Am I missing something here? PS: Not sure why you would pick on React for tooling complexity. You can use it with one <script> tag and no JSX, just like angular or jquery or whatnot. If you also want to use ES6, JSX syntax, have your code linted, hot module reloaded, uglified, your sprites auto-generated, and all your assets packaged for efficient distribution that's not react, that's a lot of independent feature requests that require astonishingly minimal boilerplate to get running considering the value you're getting. All of that is completely optional too. If you look at how typical real-world react and angular projects look, they would be very similar in terms of build tools used.