> There's nothing wrong with this at all. Any time I want to get up and running with a new stack, I look around for a boilerplate. How long do you spend lookin

> There's nothing wrong with this at all. Any time I want to get up and running with a new stack, I look around for a boilerplate. How long do you spend looking for a boilerplate? > I choose the one which has the easiest-looking learning curve and just start trying to solve problems with it. How do you know without spending time trying it out? > If it works well and requires a minimum amount of customization Again, how do you know without using it? > Boilerplates are a nice thing to have in an era of constantly-improving software. Not having to do everything yourself is awesome. I agree completely about not having to do everything yourself. However, I have never have had a good experience with a boilerplate. It's usually missing something crucial where I end up spending a lot of time anyway. Also, the boilerplate makes some assumptions that have to roll back to get the crucial thing to work so I end up re-implementing some things anyway. So I can either throw it away and admit I pretty much wasted time and try another one, or I can just keep building on the boilerplate that doesn't actually solve my problems. Or I could have just started from scratch. It's a hard problem.