I know this is a cheap answer, and it tends to get a bit philosophical for me, but you have to ask the question "would that site exist without those frameworks?

I know this is a cheap answer, and it tends to get a bit philosophical for me, but you have to ask the question "would that site exist without those frameworks?" If using that framework means that the developer can churn out something much faster, and therefore has time for more features, even if they aren't perfect or fast, is the user really worse off for it? Continuing the carpenter analogy, it's the difference between using a nailgun and a dovetail joint. Sure, the nailgun'd version probaly won't last as long, but if that means that the one carpenter was able to make 5 different shelving units that all looked exactly how the customer wanted them to look and was able to do it for cheap enough that they all happily bought it, is that really worse than only being able to get one expensive "better" version out and not being able to customize it per-customer because of time constraints? And I know first-hand that those kinds of trade offs happen all the time. There are tons of times where "can we afford to add feature X" is a "yes" because we are using React in the app and spinning up a new component becomes extremely easy, but in applications which aren't using a framework that is often a "no" because we need to do so much more work to get it fully integrated and working.