If when people talk about "frameworks" they're really talking about "monolithic frameworks", then maybe most frameworks indeed suck, because they're all guilty

If when people talk about "frameworks" they're really talking about "monolithic frameworks", then maybe most frameworks indeed suck, because they're all guilty of the accusations made in the article (which amounts to: monolithism). Imagine some monolithic framework. Now, a Super Magical Refactoring(tm) takes place and the public interface doesn't barely change at all, everything is the same except that the core is made tiny and almost all the functionnality is implemented as libraries that were extracted from the previous core but obviously fit perfectly well with the core and eachother. You're telling me the framework is no longer a "framework" but just a "library"?! I think you're playing semantic games. I say modularity doesn't preclude "verticalisation".