Of course you can. But in my experience, frameworks are a natural progression of good coding. My first several dozen websites were "from scratch" without any

Of course you can. But in my experience, frameworks are a natural progression of good coding. My first several dozen websites were "from scratch" without any boiler plate code. Every page was it's own PHP file, every page had its own HTML hard coded inside of it--the layout of the site repeated dozens of times. Then I said, this is really dumb! If I want to change an element of the layout I have to edit all these pages every single time. I wish I just had a single file to edit... So my next revisions where every page again it's own PHP file, but this time the HTML layout was split into header / footer HTML and I used handy require methods. Ahah! So much time an effort saved in upkeep--yay. Then I was like, "Wow, theres a lot of similar code needed at the top of every file--stuff to get all my classes included, stuff to setup my database properties, etc. Man I wish I could do all that in one file and just maintain that.." So I did just that, from then on I started coding my sites with a bootstrap PHP file, a single include at the top of every page to set everything up, and the rest of the page handled area specific code. Thats how my own personal experience with PHP kept evolving, I kept realizing inefficiencies and coming up with patterns to alleviate those lacking areas. I ended up coding simple switch case index pages that would call defined functions that represented web pages. I even created my own template classes that would load a file and replace keywords in it with parameter values. I had naturally tended towards controller driven websites, using the MVC pattern on my own without ever having actually known that it was the Model View Controller pattern. To me, it had become just the obvious way to do things. Of course my own implementations where rough, and not reusable, they were flawed with limitations. Eventually, I decided to look into frameworks--luckily it was at that time that Zend framework was coming into it's own. It was at version 0.7. I started reading the documentation and I was blown away because I kept seeing all these features that it provided and they were features that ran parallel with my own development designs. The framework had been what I was looking for, a polished implementation of a development paradigm that I had intuitively developed on my own. The thing about the framework code base is that it is designed with a text book like knowledge of solidly defined patterns. That's what freed it from all the flaws and limitations of my own implementations. Instead the framework solutions were abstracted, and brimmed with potential of being augmented and extended--allowing them to be robust enough to fulfill typical use cases and yet capable of being molded to fit special needs and requirements. To me, it seems like when ever there is a framework article with a mostly con attitude, I can't help but think the article is being written from the perspective of someone who has not fully been through the "from scratch" phase. More likely, they started with frameworks. It's easy to understand why there would be such a jerk neck reaction when abruptly approaching a framework without a from scratch background. Without the background, all the robustness, all the complexity, there is no frame of reference for it. Such people don't comprehend the need or usefulness of those solutions. Instead, they have this preconception that frameworks "claim to do everything" and yet for some reason you have to actually code and implement special cases so why bother with the learning curve in the first place if you were going to have to come up with your own solutions. So often I have to reiterate that frameworks don't do everything--they aren't suppose to, they cant! They are the boiler plate, they are the starting point. They take care of the simple basic things that way you can devote your time to addressing the interesting, hard stuff. It may feel like it wastes more time than it saves--but thats just because you have to learn it first. Obviously theres a learning curve, obviously theres an initial time investment. The point is, after that initial investment there is so much payoff. Of course your first site, and your first framework are going to be hellish on effort. But your 3rd, or your 4th you'll have a basic site up and running in 2 minutes and be free to spend the rest of your time working on the unique core features that will make your site glorious and awesome. The god awful truth of it all, is that web development really isn't easy. There is no magic wand to wave that will grant you the perfect site from a wish. There is no ultimate does everything tool that requires no skill to use. There is, and always will be a time investment required. Smart, successful developers will invest that time requirement into understanding and utilizing frameworks--that investment will be fruitful and multiply.