> it wouldn't be a problem at all I have trouble believing this is true in the long-run. There are several examples that seem contrary to this idea. Lodash wa

> it wouldn't be a problem at all I have trouble believing this is true in the long-run. There are several examples that seem contrary to this idea. Lodash was supposed to be a drop-in replacement for underscore, and that was fine and all until contributors felt like they had to duplicate any new features into both libraries. On the bright side, this lead to their upcoming merger, but not without years of wasted effort duplicating work and ink spilled arguing over which was better. You could argue that underscore could have been more willing to merge in more-performant implementations (though I think they preferred readability over speed), but it seems like this fork-first mentality in the JS world somehow makes that almost looked down upon. Others like Zepto or other jQuery-alikes seem to reach moderate uptake at best but don't necessarily move the community forward either. Ultimately it seems like the best you can hope for is to get enough attention / stir up enough of a hornet's nest / make dual-contributors lives hard enough to then get merged back in to the original library, and it seems like this is much more pronounced in the JS community[0]. But looking at Node vs IO, CoffeeScript vs JS, or other like-X-but-better situations[1], it sure seems like more community input into and improvement of the already existing frameworks would go a long way. 0: I'm totally willing to admit that JS is one of the things I spend more time doing so I just might notice it more. 1: I know there are nuances to these situations, but I'm being a little reductionist, and they were still stand up to the point.