I think there should be a new razor, we can call it the Apple razor because Apple is the most common case. Basically, when tempted to ascribe the decisions of a

I think there should be a new razor, we can call it the Apple razor because Apple is the most common case. Basically, when tempted to ascribe the decisions of a successful entity to stupidity, consider that you may not be considering all the facts and facets. Yes, web development is complicated. Yes, that complexity is at times completely unwarranted. But, that does not mean that the originators of this complexity were simply being stupid. A company like Facebook has a simple requirement: keep users on the site. If that means building a completely overengineered platform or inventing a totally new front end framework, sure, go for it! As long as it keeps the experience so smooth, so seductive that people scroll for hours, absorbing ads and producing money for Facebook. I wouldn't be surprised if someone did some user testing and the SPA with no jarring refreshes and fluid page changes scored significantly higher on user engagement. If you look at the companies that have really fancy JS libraries, they're generally places that rely on people using their apps continuously. Netflix? They're practically the poster child for internet addiction. Twitter? Yep. Even old school media companies like the New York Times are starting to use fancy web technologies. Clicks and eyeball time is money. Stuff like React and transpiling and webpack are small prices to pay if they keep your front end developers happy and your website nice and shiny for your average user.